Core Insights - The Global X - Silver Miners ETF (SIL) and the iShares Gold Trust (IAU) provide different investment approaches to precious metals, with SIL focusing on silver mining companies and IAU holding physical gold [2][8]. Cost & Size Comparison - SIL has an expense ratio of 0.65% and assets under management (AUM) of $6.7 billion, while IAU has a lower expense ratio of 0.25% and AUM of $81.2 billion [3]. - The one-year total return for SIL is 216.7%, compared to 76.64% for IAU [3]. Performance & Risk Analysis - SIL has a maximum drawdown of -24.59% over five years, while IAU has a higher maximum drawdown of -42.18% [4]. - An investment of $1,000 in SIL would grow to $2,432 over five years, whereas the same investment in IAU would grow to $2,834 [4]. Fund Structure - IAU is designed to closely mirror the price of physical gold, holding 16.07 ounces in trust as of February 20, and has been operational for 21 years [5]. - SIL holds a diversified portfolio of 39 silver mining stocks, with its largest positions in Wheaton Precious Metals, Pan American Silver, and Coeur Mining, which together account for over 40% of the fund [6]. Investment Implications - IAU serves as a direct investment in gold, making it a safer option for investors looking to gain exposure to gold without the complexities of physical ownership [9][12]. - SIL provides indirect exposure to silver prices through mining stocks, which can be influenced by individual company performance and market conditions, but comes with a higher expense ratio that may affect long-term returns [12][11].

The Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (NYSEMKT:VEA) and the SPDR Portfolio Developed World ex-US ETF (NYSEMKT:SPDW) both aim to track the performance of developed markets outside the United States, providing diversified exposure across Europe, Asia, and Canada. This comparison looks at how the two funds stack up on cost, yield, risk, holdings, and portfolio quirks to help investors decide which may appeal more for international equity allocation. Snapshot (cost & size) Metric VEA SPDW Issuer ...

Both the State Street SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market ETF (NYSEMKT:SPGM) and the iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (NYSEMKT:IEFA) aim to provide diversified international equity exposure, but their approaches differ. SPGM tracks the entire global market, including the U.S. and emerging markets, while IEFA zeroes in on developed markets outside the U.S. and Canada. This comparison highlights how cost, performance, risk, and sector makeup set them apart for investors seeking global diversification. Snaps ...

Core Insights - The comparison between State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP) and First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF (FTXG) highlights differences in cost, returns, risk, liquidity, and portfolio construction for investors to consider Cost & Size - XLP has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.08% compared to FTXG's 0.60% [2][3] - As of February 14, 2026, XLP's one-year return is 11.12%, while FTXG's is 6.87% [2] - XLP offers a dividend yield of 2.14%, slightly lower than FTXG's 2.60% [2] - XLP has assets under management (AUM) of $17.24 billion, significantly higher than FTXG's $20.1 million [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over five years, XLP has a maximum drawdown of (16.31%), while FTXG's is (21.71%) [4] - A $1,000 investment in XLP would grow to $1,332 over five years, compared to $925 for FTXG [4] Portfolio Composition - FTXG tracks a smart beta index with 31 holdings, including major companies like PepsiCo, Archer-Daniels-Midland, and Mondelez International [5] - XLP, launched in 1998, has 39 holdings and includes top companies like Walmart, Costco, and Procter & Gamble [6] Investment Implications - XLP's lower expense ratio, higher returns, and established market presence make it a more competitive option compared to FTXG [7] - FTXG, being a younger fund, may have potential for scalability as it continues to develop its portfolio [7] - The focus of XLP on retail stores contrasts with FTXG's emphasis on food and beverage products, which may appeal to different investor preferences [8] Market Stability - Both funds provide stability during market volatility, as consumer defensive assets are essential regardless of economic conditions [9]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (VXUS) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) differ significantly in cost, yield, diversification, and risk, with VXUS providing broader international exposure and EEM focusing on emerging markets [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - VXUS has an expense ratio of 0.05%, significantly lower than EEM's 0.72% - The one-year return for VXUS is 31.4%, while EEM's is higher at 36.2% - VXUS offers a dividend yield of 3.0%, compared to EEM's 2.1% - VXUS has assets under management (AUM) of $606.2 billion, whereas EEM has $26.95 billion [3][4] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over five years, VXUS experienced a maximum drawdown of 29.43%, while EEM had a higher drawdown of 39.82% - An investment of $1,000 in VXUS would grow to $1,277 over five years, compared to $1,046 for EEM [5] Sector Composition - EEM's portfolio is concentrated in emerging markets, with technology (28%), financial services (22%), and consumer cyclical (12%) as leading sectors, holding 1,214 stocks [6] - VXUS covers a wider range of international markets, with financial services (23%), industrials (16%), and technology (15%) as its top sectors, and it holds 8,602 stocks [7] Investor Suitability - EEM is suited for aggressive investors seeking high growth potential from emerging markets, despite its higher expense ratio and risk profile [8] - VXUS is recommended for long-term investors looking for stability and lower costs, with a more attractive dividend yield [10]

Core Insights - The Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF (FSTA) and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS) differ significantly in cost and portfolio concentration, with RSPS employing an equal-weight strategy and FSTA focusing on larger sector leaders [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - FSTA has a lower expense ratio of 0.08% compared to RSPS's 0.40%, making it more cost-effective for investors [3][4] - As of February 13, 2026, FSTA has a one-year return of 10.7% while RSPS has a return of 14.9% [3] - FSTA's assets under management (AUM) stand at $1.4 billion, significantly higher than RSPS's $264 million [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over five years, FSTA has a max drawdown of 16.6%, which is less severe than RSPS's 18.6% [5] - An investment of $1,000 in FSTA would grow to $1,584 over five years, compared to $1,245 for RSPS [5] Portfolio Composition - FSTA tracks the MSCI USA IMI Consumer Staples Index and holds 97 stocks, with a heavy concentration in large companies like Walmart, Costco, and Procter & Gamble, which together account for over one-third of its assets [6] - RSPS equally weights 38 stocks, reducing concentration risk, with top holdings including Bunge Global SA, Colgate-Palmolive, and Church & Dwight, each around 3% of the portfolio [7] Investment Implications - Both ETFs provide defensive exposure to consumer staples, which are essential goods that consumers purchase regularly, making them attractive during market volatility [8] - FSTA's lower fees can lead to significant savings for investors over the long term, especially when compounded over a decade [9]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (VDC) and the Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF (FSTA) are designed to capture the performance of the U.S. consumer staples sector, focusing on essential goods [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - VDC has an expense ratio of 0.09% while FSTA has a slightly lower expense ratio of 0.08% - The one-year return for VDC is 8.45% compared to FSTA's 8.16% - VDC offers a dividend yield of 2.10%, while FSTA provides a marginally higher yield of 2.18% - VDC has assets under management (AUM) of $9.1 billion, significantly larger than FSTA's $1.4 billion [3][9] Performance & Risk Comparison - Both ETFs have experienced similar maximum drawdowns over five years, with VDC at -16.56% and FSTA at -16.57% - The growth of $1,000 over five years is nearly identical, with VDC growing to $1,409 and FSTA to $1,406 [4][7] Portfolio Composition - FSTA tracks the MSCI USA IMI Consumer Staples 25/50 Index and holds 96 stocks, with major positions in Costco Wholesale, Walmart, and Procter & Gamble [5] - VDC invests in 105 holdings, also featuring Walmart, Costco Wholesale, and Procter & Gamble among its top stocks [6][7] Investor Implications - VDC and FSTA are nearly identical in performance, volatility, and portfolio composition, with only minor differences in AUM, expense ratios, and dividend yields [7][8]

Core Insights - The SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) and the Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL) cater to different investor profiles due to their distinct risk levels, cost structures, and underlying exposures [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - GLD has a lower expense ratio of 0.40% compared to SIL's 0.65%, which can be significant for long-term investors [4] - As of February 11, 2026, GLD has an AUM of $175.3 billion, while SIL has an AUM of $6.6 billion [3] Performance & Risk Metrics - Over the past five years, SIL experienced a maximum drawdown of -56.8%, while GLD's maximum drawdown was -22.0% [5] - A $1,000 investment would have grown to $2,731 in GLD and $2,560 in SIL over the same period [5] Underlying Holdings - GLD provides direct exposure to gold bullion, tracking the price of physical gold, and does not hold any mining stocks, making it a safer option for those wary of company-specific risks [6] - SIL invests in 39 silver mining stocks, with major holdings in companies like Wheaton Precious Metals Corp, Pan American Silver Corp, and Coeur Mining Inc, which adds potential upside but also greater volatility [7]

The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (NYSEMKT:RSPS) and the First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF(NASDAQ:FTXG) differ most in cost, portfolio focus, and recent performance -- with RSPS charging lower fees, maintaining a tighter sector tilt, and outpacing FTXG over the past year. Both RSPS and FTXG target the U.S. consumer staples space, but with distinct approaches. RSPS takes an equal-weighted slice of the S&P 500’s consumer staples sector, while FTXG tracks a smart-beta index focused ...

The State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEMKT:XLP) and the Invesco Food & Beverage ETF (NYSEMKT:PBJ) both target the U.S. consumer sector, but XLP offers broader staples exposure at a lower cost and higher yield, while PBJ focuses on food and beverage with a more diversified sector mix and higher trading friction. XLP and PBJ both give investors access to U.S. companies in food, beverage, and consumer defensive industries, but their approaches and underlying holdings differ. This comp ...