Core Insights - The article compares two leading short-term bond ETFs: Vanguard Short-Term Bond ETF (BSV) and iShares Core 1-5 Year USD Bond ETF (ISTB), highlighting their differences in cost, portfolio concentration, and sector exposure [2][3] Cost and Size Comparison - BSV has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% compared to ISTB's 0.06%, making it more cost-effective for investors [4][5] - BSV has significantly higher assets under management (AUM) at $65.6 billion, while ISTB has $4.7 billion [4][10] - Both funds have the same 1-year return of 1.6%, but ISTB offers a slightly higher dividend yield of 4.1% compared to BSV's 3.8% [4][5] Performance and Risk Analysis - Over a five-year period, BSV experienced a max drawdown of 8.50%, while ISTB had a max drawdown of 9.33% [6] - The growth of a $1,000 investment over five years is $951 for BSV and $945 for ISTB, indicating a marginally better performance for BSV [6] Portfolio Composition - BSV holds a concentrated portfolio of just 30 bonds, with a significant focus on communication services (69%) [7] - ISTB, in contrast, has a diversified portfolio with nearly 7,000 bonds, primarily in utilities (99%) [8] - BSV's largest positions include Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America, while ISTB's top holdings are U.S. Treasury notes [7][8] Investor Implications - BSV is more suitable for cost-conscious investors seeking high liquidity due to its lower fees and larger AUM [10] - ISTB offers broader diversification and a better dividend yield, making it appealing for investors looking for stability and income [11]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (VDC) and the State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP) provide exposure to the U.S. consumer staples sector, with XLP being slightly cheaper and offering a higher yield, while VDC has a broader portfolio and better five-year returns [1][2][8] Cost & Size - VDC has an expense ratio of 0.09% and assets under management (AUM) of $8.6 billion, while XLP has a lower expense ratio of 0.08% and a larger AUM of $15.3 billion [3][4] - The one-year return for VDC is -2.4% compared to XLP's -3.4%, and the dividend yield for VDC is 2.2% versus XLP's 2.7% [3][4] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over five years, VDC has a maximum drawdown of -17.6% and has grown $1,000 to $1,246, while XLP has a maximum drawdown of -17.8% and has grown $1,000 to $1,180 [5] Portfolio Composition - XLP holds 36 stocks with a 100% allocation to consumer defensive companies, led by Walmart (11.9%), Costco Wholesale (9.2%), and Procter & Gamble (7.8%) [6] - VDC has a broader approach with 105 holdings, 98% in consumer defensive, and top positions including Walmart (14.2%), Costco Wholesale (13.0%), and Procter & Gamble (11.2%) [7] Investor Considerations - XLP's lower expense ratio and higher yield may attract cost- and income-focused investors, while VDC's broader portfolio and stronger five-year total return may appeal to those seeking diversification [8][10] - The concentration of XLP with only 36 stocks could be a risk if the largest holdings underperform, whereas VDC's wider scope may provide better resilience [9][10]

Core Viewpoint - The State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Growth ETF (SLYG) is a passively managed ETF aimed at providing broad exposure to the Small Cap Growth segment of the US equity market, with assets exceeding $3.65 billion, making it one of the larger ETFs in this category [1] Group 1: Fund Overview - SLYG was launched on September 25, 2000, and is sponsored by State Street Investment Management [1] - The ETF has annual operating expenses of 0.15%, positioning it as one of the cheaper options in the market [4] - It has a 12-month trailing dividend yield of 1.1% [4] Group 2: Market Characteristics - Small cap companies, defined as those with market capitalizations below $2 billion, are associated with higher potential returns but also higher risks [2] - Growth stocks typically exhibit higher sales and earnings growth rates but come with higher valuations and volatility compared to value stocks [3] Group 3: Sector Exposure and Holdings - The ETF has a significant allocation to the Industrials sector, comprising about 20.7% of the portfolio, followed by Information Technology and Healthcare [5] - Sterling Infrastructure Inc (STRL) represents approximately 1.46% of total assets, with Spx Technologies Inc (SPXC) and Interdigital Inc (IDCC) also among the top holdings [6] Group 4: Performance Metrics - SLYG aims to match the performance of the S&P SmallCap 600 Growth Index, which includes U.S. common equities with market capitalizations between $250 million and $1.2 billion [7] - The ETF has returned roughly 6.65% year-to-date and is down about 0.88% over the past year, with a trading range of $72.61 to $97.90 in the last 52 weeks [8] - It has a beta of 1.05 and a standard deviation of 20.05% over the trailing three-year period, indicating a medium risk profile [8] Group 5: Alternatives - Other ETFs in the small cap growth space include the iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) with $13.46 billion in assets and an expense ratio of 0.24%, and the Vanguard Small-Cap Growth ETF (VBK) with $21.00 billion in assets and a lower expense ratio of 0.07% [11] Group 6: Investment Appeal - Passively managed ETFs like SLYG are favored by both institutional and retail investors due to their low costs, transparency, flexibility, and tax efficiency [12]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) and the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) differ significantly in cost, yield, and diversification, with VOO providing broader market exposure while MGK focuses on growth stocks [1][2] Cost and Size Comparison - MGK has an expense ratio of 0.07%, while VOO has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% [3][4] - As of November 28, 2025, MGK's one-year return is 21.8%, compared to VOO's 13.5% [3] - MGK offers a dividend yield of 0.4%, whereas VOO provides a higher yield of 1.1% [4] - MGK has assets under management (AUM) of $33.0 billion, while VOO has a significantly larger AUM of $1.5 trillion [3] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, MGK experienced a maximum drawdown of -36.01%, compared to VOO's -24.52% [5] - An investment of $1,000 in MGK would have grown to $2,110 over five years, while the same investment in VOO would have grown to $1,889 [5] Portfolio Composition - VOO tracks the S&P 500 Index and holds 505 stocks, with major sector allocations in technology (36%), financial services (13%), and consumer cyclicals (11%) [6] - The largest holdings in VOO include NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft [6] - MGK is heavily concentrated in technology, with 71% of its portfolio, and holds only 69 stocks [7] - The top holdings in MGK are also NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft, but with higher portfolio weights [7] Investment Focus - Investors in MGK should be comfortable with significant exposure to large tech stocks, particularly in the artificial intelligence sector, with NVIDIA making up 14.3% of the fund [8] - VOO investors have substantial exposure to tech giants like Nvidia, Alphabet, Apple, and Microsoft, which collectively account for about 27% of the fund [9] - VOO has shown a steady increase in dividend payouts, with the latest quarterly payout being 25.8% higher than five years ago, while MGK's dividends have been more volatile [9]

Weighing gold versus silver miners? Key differences in cost, risk, and portfolio depth set these two ETFs apart for investors.The VanEck Gold Miners ETF(GDX 0.44%) stands out for its lower cost, larger assets under management (AUM), and stronger recent performance. The Global X Silver Miners ETF(SIL 0.17%), on the other hand, appeals to those seeking a more direct play on silver and a higher yield.Both ETFs target investors interested in mining equities, with SIL focused on silver miners and GDX providing g ...

Join for a 100% Risk-Free trial and see if our proven method can help you too. You do not need to pay for the costly lessons from the market itself.I last covered the Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF ( SCHD ) on 10.21 with an article titled “SCHD ETF: REIT Dividends Too Attractive To Exclude”. That article was motivated by the ETF’sSensor Unlimited is an economist by training with a PhD, with a focus on financial economics. She is a quantitative modeler and for the past decade she has been covering the mortg ...

Core Insights - The article compares two consumer staples ETFs: State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP) and iShares US Consumer Staples ETF (IYK), highlighting their differences in cost, portfolio composition, and sector exposure [1][2]. Cost and Size - XLP has a lower expense ratio of 0.08% compared to IYK's 0.38%, making it more cost-effective for investors [3][4]. - XLP has a larger Assets Under Management (AUM) of $15.5 billion, while IYK has an AUM of $1.3 billion [3]. - The one-year return for XLP is -5.4%, while IYK's is -3.9%, indicating IYK has outperformed XLP in the short term [3]. Performance and Risk Comparison - Over five years, XLP has a maximum drawdown of -17.8%, while IYK's is -16.3%, suggesting IYK has slightly better risk management [5]. - The growth of $1,000 invested over five years is $1,167 for XLP and $1,239 for IYK, indicating IYK has provided better returns [5]. Portfolio Composition - IYK includes 12% in healthcare and 2% in basic materials, with a total of 55 holdings, while XLP is strictly focused on consumer staples with 100% allocation and 37 holdings [6][7]. - Top holdings for IYK include Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, and Philip Morris International, while XLP's largest positions are Walmart, Costco, and Procter & Gamble [6][7]. Investment Considerations - The decision between XLP and IYK may hinge on the trade-off between fees and performance, with XLP being more affordable but IYK potentially offering broader exposure [8][9]. - Investors may prefer IYK if they seek exposure to healthcare and basic materials, despite its higher fees [10][11].

Core Insights - The article compares two consumer staples ETFs, the State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP) and the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS), highlighting their differing approaches to sector exposure and investment strategies [1][2]. Cost and Size - XLP has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.08% compared to RSPS's 0.40% [3][4]. - As of November 28, 2025, XLP has a one-year return of -4.5%, while RSPS has a return of -6.6% [3]. - XLP has a much larger Assets Under Management (AUM) of $15.5 billion compared to RSPS's $237.2 million [3]. Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, RSPS experienced a maximum drawdown of -18.61%, while XLP had a drawdown of -16.32% [5]. - An investment of $1,000 in XLP would have grown to $1,186 over five years, while the same investment in RSPS would have decreased to $990 [5]. Portfolio Composition - XLP holds 38 stocks and is heavily weighted towards large companies like Walmart, Costco, and Procter & Gamble, which can dominate its performance [6]. - RSPS also consists of 38 stocks but employs an equal-weighting strategy, giving each holding similar allocation, featuring companies like Monster Beverage, Bunge Global, and Dollar Tree [7]. Market Context - Consumer staples are generally considered defensive stocks, but many have struggled due to inflation and tariff concerns [8][9]. - Both ETFs provide diversification options for investors concerned about concentration in tech stocks within the S&P 500 [9]. - XLP's focus on larger companies has contributed to its better performance compared to RSPS, which may appeal to those interested in small- and medium-cap stocks [10][11].

Core Insights - The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) and the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) provide similar exposure to large-cap U.S. stocks by tracking the S&P 500 Index, but VOO is distinguished by its lower fees and higher assets under management [1][7]. Cost & Size Comparison - SPY has an expense ratio of 0.09%, while VOO has a lower expense ratio of 0.03%, making VOO more cost-effective for investors [3][8]. - As of December 1, 2025, VOO's one-year return is 13.4%, slightly higher than SPY's 13.3% [3]. - VOO has assets under management (AUM) of $800.2 billion compared to SPY's $672.7 billion, indicating greater liquidity for VOO [3][7]. Performance & Risk Metrics - Both SPY and VOO have a maximum drawdown of -24.5% over the past five years, indicating similar risk profiles [4]. - The growth of $1,000 invested over five years is nearly identical, with SPY growing to $1,885 and VOO to $1,887 [4]. Holdings & Sector Exposure - VOO holds 504 stocks with significant allocations in technology (36%), financial services (13%), and consumer cyclical (11%), closely mirroring the S&P 500 Index [5]. - SPY has a similar structure, holding 503 stocks with the same top sector allocations and major holdings, including Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [6]. Investment Considerations - The primary differentiating factor between SPY and VOO is the expense ratio, which can lead to significant savings over time for investors with large account balances [9].

Key Points VDC has a much larger asset base than FSTA. Both ETFs charge nearly identical expense ratios and offer similar dividend yields. Performance and sector exposures are extremely similar, with only minor differences in top holdings. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (NYSEMKT:VDC) and Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples ETF (NYSEMKT:FSTA) They look almost interchangeable in terms of cost, yield, and sector exposure, but VDC stands out for its ...