The Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (NASDAQ:VXUS) and the iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (NYSEMKT:IEMG) both aim to provide diversified international equity exposure, but their approaches and underlying indexes set them apart. This comparison examines how each fund’s costs, returns, risk, and portfolio makeup may appeal to different investor objectives. Snapshot (cost & size) Metric VXUS IEMG Issuer Vanguard iShares Expense ratio 0.05% 0.09% 1-yr return (as of Feb. ...

Core Insights - Vanguard Short-Term Corporate Bond ETF (VCSH) offers a higher yield compared to Vanguard Short-Term Bond ETF (BSV), while both have identical expense ratios of 0.03% [3][4] - VCSH focuses on investment-grade corporate bonds, whereas BSV diversifies across government, corporate, and select international bonds [2][6] - The performance metrics indicate that VCSH has a 1-year return of 6.98% and a dividend yield of 4.3%, while BSV has a 1-year return of 6.33% and a dividend yield of 3.9% [3][4] Cost & Size - Both VCSH and BSV have an expense ratio of 0.03% [3][4] - As of February 13, 2026, VCSH's 1-year return is 6.98%, while BSV's is 6.33% [3] - VCSH has a higher dividend yield of 4.3% compared to BSV's 3.9% [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - VCSH has a maximum drawdown of 9.49% over five years, while BSV has a lower maximum drawdown of 8.55% [5] - The growth of $1,000 over five years is $959 for VCSH and $951 for BSV, indicating slightly better performance for VCSH [5] Portfolio Composition - BSV holds 30 positions, primarily in U.S. government and investment-grade corporate bonds, with maturities ranging from one to five years [6] - VCSH exclusively invests in high-quality corporate bonds, with major holdings including Bank of America Corp and CVS Health Corp [7] - Both funds are fully allocated to cash and equivalents, but VCSH's focus on corporate bonds may lead to different yield and risk characteristics [7] Implications for Investors - Investors assessing bond stability should consider the distinction between exposure to corporate credit (VCSH) and U.S. Treasuries (BSV) as it significantly impacts returns [8]

Core Insights - The article compares two bond ETFs, iShares 5-10 Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (IGIB) and Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND), highlighting their differing portfolios and risk profiles [2][4]. Cost and Size - IGIB has an expense ratio of 0.04% and assets under management (AUM) of $18.11 billion, while BND has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% and a significantly larger AUM of $389.22 billion [3]. - The one-year return for IGIB is 5.55%, compared to BND's 4.19%, and IGIB offers a higher dividend yield of 4.57% versus BND's 3.83% [3]. Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, IGIB experienced a maximum drawdown of -20.61%, while BND had a drawdown of -17.91% [5]. - An investment of $1,000 in IGIB would have grown to $881, while the same investment in BND would have grown to $853 over five years [5]. Underlying Holdings - IGIB focuses on investment-grade corporate debt with maturities of 5 to 10 years, holding 2,979 assets, primarily A- and BBB-rated bonds [6]. - BND tracks the broad U.S. investment-grade bond market with a diverse portfolio of 15,000 securities, including Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, with at least 72% of its weight in AAA-rated bonds [7][9]. Investment Implications - Investors must consider their volatility preference when choosing between IGIB and BND, as both have similar one-year returns and have experienced a decline of around 12% in the last five years [8]. - BND's allocation to higher-rated bonds makes it less risky, with half of its holdings in U.S. government bonds, while IGIB has less than one percent in AAA-rated bonds [10].

Core Insights - The article discusses two ETFs focused on gold investment: Sprott Gold Miners ETF (SGDM) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU), highlighting their differing investment approaches and performance metrics [1][3]. Cost & Size - SGDM has an expense ratio of 0.50% and assets under management (AUM) of $823.1 million, while AAAU has a lower expense ratio of 0.18% and a larger AUM of $3.11 billion [2]. - The one-year return for SGDM is 149.88%, significantly higher than AAAU's 73.1% [2][3]. Performance & Risk Comparison - Over five years, SGDM has a maximum drawdown of 45.05%, compared to AAAU's 20.94% [4]. - The growth of a $1,000 investment over five years is $2,667 for SGDM and $2,681 for AAAU, indicating similar long-term performance despite SGDM's higher volatility [4]. Investment Composition - AAAU tracks the performance of physical gold, holding 100% of its assets in gold bars stored in the U.K. [5]. - SGDM invests in 43 stocks within the global gold mining industry, with major holdings in companies like Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd., Newmont Corp., and Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. [5]. Market Context - The precious metals market saw significant growth in 2025, with gold prices nearly doubling since the start of that year, driven by geopolitical and economic factors [6]. - Gold and other metals are viewed as hedges against the U.S. dollar, particularly during times of international tension [6].

Core Insights - The State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP) and the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS) target the U.S. consumer staples sector but utilize different portfolio construction methods [1] Cost & Size Comparison - XLP has a lower expense ratio of 0.08% compared to RSPS's 0.40% - As of February 14, 2026, XLP's 1-year return is 9.94%, while RSPS's is higher at 11.75% - Both funds have similar dividend yields, with XLP at 2.56% and RSPS at 2.63% - XLP has an Assets Under Management (AUM) of $16 billion, significantly larger than RSPS's $250 million [2][3] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over a 5-year period, XLP experienced a maximum drawdown of -16.32%, while RSPS had a higher drawdown of -18.61% - An investment of $1,000 in XLP would grow to $1,363 over 5 years, compared to $1,095 for RSPS [4] Portfolio Composition - RSPS employs an equal-weight strategy across its 36 holdings, rebalancing quarterly, which allows smaller companies to have a similar influence as larger ones - XLP follows a market-cap-weighted index, leading to a portfolio dominated by larger companies like Walmart, Costco Wholesale, and Procter & Gamble [5][6] Implications for Investors - The different strategies of XLP and RSPS may appeal to various investor preferences - RSPS's equal-weighted approach limits single-stock risk by giving each holding roughly the same allocation, while XLP's market-cap weighting results in larger companies having a greater impact on performance [7][8]

Core Insights - The State Street SPDR Portfolio MSCI Global Stock Market ETF (SPGM) offers broader global coverage with a technology focus, while the iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF (IXUS) targets only non-U.S. stocks, has lower fees, and currently provides a higher yield [1][2]. Cost & Size Comparison - SPGM has an expense ratio of 0.09% and assets under management (AUM) of $1.5 billion, while IXUS has a lower expense ratio of 0.07% and a significantly larger AUM of $55.1 billion [3][4]. - The one-year return for SPGM is 21.1%, compared to 31.2% for IXUS, and the dividend yield for SPGM is 1.9%, while IXUS offers 3.1% [3][4]. Performance & Risk Metrics - Over five years, SPGM experienced a maximum drawdown of -25.92%, while IXUS had a higher drawdown of -30.05%. The growth of $1,000 over five years is $1,539 for SPGM and $1,282 for IXUS [5]. Holdings and Sector Allocation - IXUS tracks over 4,100 international stocks, with a sector allocation led by financial services (21%), industrials (15%), and basic materials (13%). Major holdings include Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and Samsung Electronics, indicating strong exposure to Asia and Europe [6]. - SPGM holds approximately 2,900 companies, with a significant tilt towards technology (26%), financial services (17%), and industrials (12%). Its largest positions include Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, highlighting a strong U.S. tech presence [7]. Historical Performance - Since 2021, SPGM has delivered a total return of 71%, equating to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.4%, while IXUS has generated a total return of 50% with a CAGR of 8.5% [9][10].

Core Insights - Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) target different segments of the U.S. stock market, with VOO focusing on large-cap stocks and IWM on small-cap stocks [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - VOO has a significantly lower expense ratio of 0.03% compared to IWM's 0.19% [3][4] - As of February 4, 2026, VOO has a 1-year return of 14.0% and IWM has a 1-year return of 14.8% [3] - VOO has a total assets under management (AUM) of $860.7 billion, while IWM has an AUM of $75.6 billion [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VOO experienced a maximum drawdown of 24.52%, while IWM had a maximum drawdown of 31.91% [5] - An investment of $1,000 in VOO would have grown to $1,770 over five years, compared to $1,175 for IWM [5] Portfolio Composition - IWM provides exposure to nearly 1,945 small-cap U.S. stocks, with significant sector weights in healthcare (19%), financial services (16%), and technology (16%) [6] - VOO is heavily tilted towards technology (43%) and includes major holdings like NVIDIA Corp, Apple Inc, and Microsoft Corp, with the top three positions accounting for over 20% of its assets [7] Investor Considerations - Both VOO and IWM are attractive options for investors seeking broad market exposure, but they have distinct characteristics that cater to different investment objectives [8]

Core Viewpoint - The Vanguard Short-Term Bond ETF (BSV) and Vanguard Short-Term Treasury ETF (VGSH) provide low-cost, high-liquidity investment options, with BSV offering broader bond exposure and larger assets under management compared to VGSH, which focuses solely on U.S. Treasuries [1][2]. Cost and Size - Both VGSH and BSV have an expense ratio of 0.03% - VGSH has a 1-year return of 5.1% and a dividend yield of 3.96%, while BSV has a 1-year return of 5.9% and a dividend yield of 3.85% - Assets under management (AUM) for VGSH is $30.4 billion, while BSV has $68.2 billion [3][4]. Performance and Risk Comparison - VGSH has a maximum drawdown of (5.70%) over 5 years, while BSV has a maximum drawdown of (8.54%) - The growth of $1,000 over 5 years is $1,093 for VGSH and $1,083 for BSV [5]. Portfolio Composition - BSV holds 3,115 positions, with 69.8% invested in government bonds and less than 5% in foreign debt, indicating a diverse portfolio that includes U.S. government, investment-grade corporate, and international dollar-denominated bonds [6][7]. - VGSH focuses exclusively on U.S. Treasuries with 92 holdings, reflecting a narrow mandate designed for maximum credit safety [8]. Implications for Investors - Both Vanguard funds are suitable for investors seeking safe options for short-term income, with VGSH's 5-year return slightly outperforming BSV despite its exclusive focus on U.S. Treasuries [10].

Core Insights - The Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS) and the Invesco Food & Beverage ETF (PBJ) focus on defensive market segments but employ different strategies for selection and management [1] Cost & Size - RSPS has a lower expense ratio of 0.40% compared to PBJ's 0.61% - RSPS offers a higher dividend yield of 2.63% versus PBJ's 1.7% - RSPS has assets under management (AUM) of $250 million, while PBJ has $100 million [2][3] Performance & Risk Comparison - RSPS has a maximum drawdown of 18.60% over five years, while PBJ's is 15.84% - An investment of $1,000 in RSPS would grow to $1,073 over five years, compared to $1,293 for PBJ [4] Portfolio Composition - PBJ consists of 32 companies, with 37% in packaged foods and meats and 18% in soft drinks; major holdings include Hershey, Sysco Corp, and PepsiCo, each around 5% [5] - RSPS is focused solely on consumer defensive stocks from the S&P 500, equally weighting 38 holdings such as Bunge Global, Colgate-Palmolive, and Hershey, ensuring no single stock exceeds 3% of the portfolio [6][7] Investment Implications - RSPS provides broader exposure by including food and beverage stocks along with other consumer staples, household products, tobacco, and personal care stocks, resulting in greater diversification [7] - PBJ's portfolio is more concentrated with 32 stocks and employs a selection process based on price momentum, earnings momentum, quality, management action, and value, including small- and mid-cap stocks [8]

Core Insights - The key differences between Vanguard Intermediate-Term Treasury ETF (VGIT) and Fidelity Investment Grade Bond ETF (FIGB) are cost, yield, portfolio breadth, and historical risk, with VGIT being cheaper and steadier while FIGB offers a higher payout and broader bond exposure [1][2] Cost and Size Comparison - VGIT has an expense ratio of 0.03%, significantly lower than FIGB's 0.36% [3][4] - The 1-year return for VGIT is 1.7%, while FIGB offers a higher return of 2.8% [3] - VGIT has a dividend yield of 3.8%, compared to FIGB's 4.1% [3][4] - VGIT's assets under management (AUM) stand at $44.6 billion, whereas FIGB has $354.6 million [3] - VGIT has a beta of 0.82, indicating lower volatility compared to FIGB's beta of 1.01 [3] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past four years, VGIT experienced a maximum drawdown of 13.4%, while FIGB had a drawdown of 15.6% [5] - The growth of $1,000 invested over four years is $1,056 for VGIT and $1,050 for FIGB, indicating VGIT's slightly better performance [5] Portfolio Composition - FIGB invests in 707 positions across high-grade U.S. bonds, with 45% of its portfolio in government bonds and 22% in corporate and securitized bonds [6] - VGIT holds 102 positions exclusively in U.S. Treasury securities, focusing on intermediate maturities of three to ten years, providing pure government exposure [7] Investment Implications - Both VGIT and FIGB are considered solid options for investors seeking quality intermediate-term bond funds in 2026, with both delivering returns over the last four years with minimal drawdowns [8] - FIGB's broader diversification and longer average duration of 5.9 years may lead to better performance if interest rates decline, compared to VGIT's average duration of 4.9 years [9]