Core Insights - The Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF (SCHB) and iShares Core S&P Total U.S. Stock Market ETF (ITOT) are both low-cost, ultra-diversified U.S. equity ETFs with nearly identical performance metrics and sector allocations, but ITOT has a larger asset base and higher trading volume [2][4][8] Cost and Size - Both SCHB and ITOT have an expense ratio of 0.03% and a dividend yield of 1.1%, making them comparable in terms of fees and payouts [5] - As of late 2025, SCHB has $38.3 billion in assets under management (AUM), while ITOT has $80.4 billion, indicating ITOT's larger market presence [4][8] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over a five-year period, both ETFs experienced a maximum drawdown of -25.36%, demonstrating similar risk profiles [6] - A $1,000 investment in SCHB would have grown to $1,758, while the same investment in ITOT would have grown to $1,752, reflecting nearly identical performance [6] Portfolio Composition - ITOT holds 2,498 stocks, with sector allocations of 33% in technology, 13% in financial services, and 10% in consumer cyclical, featuring top positions in Nvidia (6.91%), Apple (6.03%), and Microsoft (5.41%) [7] - SCHB has 2,408 holdings with similar sector allocations: 34% in technology, 13% in financial services, and 10% in consumer cyclical, with comparable top positions in Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [8]

Core Insights - The article compares two ETFs, SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF (SPYM) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV), highlighting their differences in cost, scale, performance, and portfolio composition to guide investors in their decision-making process [1][2] Cost and Size - SPYM has a lower expense ratio of 0.02% compared to IVV's 0.03%, making it slightly more affordable for investors [3][8] - Both ETFs have identical dividend yields of 1.13% and have shown the same 1-year return of 16.8% as of January 3, 2025 [3] - IVV has significantly higher assets under management (AUM) at $733 billion compared to SPYM's $97 billion, providing greater liquidity [3][9] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over a 5-year period, a $1,000 investment would have grown to $1,829 in SPYM and $1,828 in IVV, indicating nearly identical performance [4] - The maximum drawdown for SPYM is -24.49% while IVV's is -24.50%, showing comparable risk profiles [4] Portfolio Composition - IVV holds 503 U.S. large-cap stocks, with 35% in technology, 13% in financial services, and 11% in communication services, featuring top holdings like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [5] - SPYM has a similar sector allocation and top holdings as IVV, designed for broad, low-cost exposure to the S&P 500 without unique overlays [6][7]

Core Insights - The iShares Semiconductor ETF (SOXX) focuses specifically on the semiconductor sector, while the State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLK) provides diversified exposure across the entire technology sector [2][8] Cost & Size - SOXX has an expense ratio of 0.34% and assets under management (AUM) of $17 billion, while XLK has a lower expense ratio of 0.08% and AUM of $93 billion [3][4] - Both funds have similar dividend yields, with SOXX at 0.55% and XLK at 0.53% [4] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, a $1,000 investment in SOXX would have grown to $2,483, compared to $2,220 for XLK [5] - SOXX experienced a maximum drawdown of -45.75%, while XLK had a lower maximum drawdown of -33.56%, indicating higher risk for SOXX due to its narrower focus [5] Holdings Overview - XLK tracks the Technology Select Sector Index, including 70 leading U.S. technology stocks, with top holdings like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft making up nearly 40% of its assets [6][7] - SOXX is concentrated on the semiconductor industry, holding only 30 companies, with major positions in Nvidia, Advanced Micro Devices, and Micron Technology [7]

Core Insights - The Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF (SCHB) and the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) are designed to replicate the entire U.S. stock market, serving as foundational elements for diversified investment portfolios [2] Cost & Size - Both SCHB and VTI have an expense ratio of 0.03% and a dividend yield of 1.11%, indicating they are equally affordable [3][4] - As of January 2, 2026, SCHB has an AUM of $38 billion, while VTI has a significantly larger AUM of $567 billion [3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over a five-year period, SCHB experienced a maximum drawdown of -25.40%, while VTI had a slightly lower drawdown of -25.36% [5] - An investment of $1,000 would grow to $1,734 in SCHB and $1,728 in VTI over the same period, showing comparable performance [5] Portfolio Composition - VTI tracks a broader index with 3,527 stocks, heavily weighted towards technology (35% of total assets), with significant holdings in financial services and consumer cyclicals [6] - SCHB holds a narrower selection of 2,407 stocks, with a similar technology weighting of 34% [7] Investor Implications - Both ETFs offer identical expense ratios, dividend yields, and risk levels, making them nearly indistinguishable in terms of fees and income [10] - VTI's larger scale and higher trading volume may attract investors who prioritize liquidity and efficient trade execution [8]

Key Points VNQ charges a lower expense ratio and offers a higher dividend yield than ICF. VNQ holds over five times as many positions, with more diversified sector exposure compared to ICF’s concentrated REIT lineup. Both funds saw similar five-year drawdowns, but ICF slightly outperformed on cumulative growth over that period. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › The most notable differences between iShares Select U.S. REIT ETF (NYSEMKT:ICF) and Vanguard Real Estate ETF (N ...

Core Viewpoint - The Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) and the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) are both designed to replicate the performance of the S&P 500 Index, but they differ in costs, returns, risk, and portfolio details, which may be significant for long-term investors [1]. 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 [2]. - As of January 1, 2026, both SPY and VOO have a 1-year return of 16.3% [2]. - VOO offers a slightly higher dividend yield of 1.12% compared to SPY's 1.06% [2]. Performance & Risk Comparison - Both SPY and VOO have a maximum drawdown of -24.5% over the past five years [3]. - The growth of $1,000 invested over five years is $1,824 for SPY and $1,825 for VOO, indicating nearly identical performance [3]. Portfolio Composition - VOO tracks the S&P 500 Index and holds 505 stocks, with significant allocations in technology (37%), financial services (13%), and consumer cyclical (11%) [4]. - The largest positions in VOO are Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, and the fund has been operational for over 15 years without employing leverage or special strategies [4]. Similarities and Differences - SPY offers nearly identical exposure to VOO, with the same top holdings and sector allocations, avoiding non-standard index tracking [5]. - The main differences between SPY and VOO lie in fees, yield, and liquidity, with VOO having a slight advantage in all these areas [6]. Investor Implications - For every $10,000 invested, VOO charges $3 in fees compared to SPY's $9, which can accumulate significantly for long-term investors [7]. - VOO's higher dividend yield can result in hundreds or thousands of dollars more in dividend income for investors holding many shares [8]. - VOO's larger assets under management (AUM) of $1.5 trillion compared to SPY's $701 billion may provide more liquidity, facilitating easier buying and selling without impacting the ETF's price [9]. Conclusion - While SPY remains a strong investment option, VOO offers advantages in minimizing fees and slightly higher dividend income, making it a preferable choice for cost-conscious long-term investors [10].

Key Points VGT charges a much lower expense ratio and offers a higher yield than IYW. IYW has delivered stronger five-year growth, but with a slightly higher drawdown and greater volatility. Both funds are heavily concentrated in mega-cap tech stocks, but VGT holds over twice as many companies. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › Both the Vanguard Information Technology ETF (NYSEMKT:VGT) and the iShares US Technology ETF (NYSEMKT:IYW) are passively managed U.S. technology ...

Key Points VTI covers the entire U.S. stock market with a strong tilt toward technology, while VTV focuses on large-cap value stocks led by financials and healthcare. VTI delivered higher one-year and five-year returns, but it experienced a steeper drawdown than VTV. Both funds are extremely low-cost, but VTV offers nearly double the dividend yield compared to VTI. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › The Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (NYSEMKT:VTI) and the Vanguard Value ...

Core Insights - Vanguard Real Estate ETF (VNQ) is distinguished by its lower expense ratio, broader mix of holdings, and significantly larger assets under management compared to State Street SPDR Dow Jones REIT ETF (RWR) [2][4] - Both VNQ and RWR aim to provide investors with access to U.S. real estate investment trusts (REITs), but they differ in cost structure, portfolio breadth, and liquidity [3] Cost & Size Comparison - VNQ has an expense ratio of 0.13%, while RWR has a higher expense ratio of 0.25% - As of December 18, 2025, VNQ has $65.4 billion in assets under management (AUM), compared to RWR's $1.71 billion [4][5] Performance & Risk Analysis - Over the past five years, RWR experienced a maximum drawdown of 32.58%, while VNQ had a drawdown of 34.48% - A $1,000 investment in RWR would have grown to $1,151, whereas the same investment in VNQ would have grown to $1,047 [6] Portfolio Composition - VNQ holds 158 stocks, with 98% in real estate, 1% in communication services, and 1% in cash or other assets, including top positions like Welltower, Prologis, and American Tower [7] - RWR is more narrowly focused with 102 companies, all classified as real estate, including similar top holdings as VNQ [8] Investment Implications - VNQ is designed as a large, liquid core holding with a low-fee structure, making it suitable for long-term allocations, while RWR follows a narrower REIT-only index [10]

Core Insights - The article compares two ETFs targeting the U.S. consumer staples sector: Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF (FSTA) and State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLP), highlighting their differences in portfolio structure, yield, and liquidity [4][5][10]. Group 1: Portfolio Structure - FSTA holds 104 stocks with a sector tilt of 98% towards consumer defensive, providing broader diversification compared to XLP, which has only 36 holdings [1][8]. - XLP's top holdings include Walmart, Costco Wholesale, and The Procter & Gamble Co., which constitute a significant portion of its assets, indicating a concentrated investment approach [2][5]. - FSTA's top five holdings represent a larger percentage of its total portfolio compared to XLP, making it somewhat top-heavy [9]. Group 2: Yield and Expense Ratio - Both ETFs charge a low expense ratio of 0.08%, but XLP offers a higher yield of 2.7% compared to FSTA's 2.3%, appealing to income-focused investors [3][5]. Group 3: Liquidity and Size - XLP has $14.9 billion in assets under management (AUM), making it larger and more liquid than FSTA, which may benefit investors looking for ease in executing large trades [2][8]. - The greater liquidity of XLP is a significant advantage over FSTA, despite both ETFs covering the same defensive sector [5][10].