Core Insights - The Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (VOOG) focuses on growth stocks and has outperformed the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) over the past year, but VOO offers lower costs, higher dividend yields, and broader market exposure [1][2] Cost and Size Comparison - VOOG has an expense ratio of 0.07% and VOO has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% - The one-year return for VOOG is 19.3% compared to 15.4% for VOO as of December 18, 2025 - VOO has a higher dividend yield of 1.1% versus 0.5% for VOOG - VOOG has assets under management (AUM) of $21.7 billion, while VOO has AUM of $1.5 trillion [3][4] Performance and Risk Comparison - The maximum drawdown over five years for VOOG is (32.73%) compared to (24.52%) for VOO - An investment of $1,000 in VOOG would grow to $1,920 over five years, while the same investment in VOO would grow to $1,826 [5] Portfolio Composition - VOO holds 505 stocks with a sector mix of 37% technology, 12% financial services, and 11% consumer cyclical, with top holdings including NVIDIA (7.38%), Apple (7.08%), and Microsoft (6.25%) [6] - VOOG concentrates 58% in technology, 12% in consumer cyclicals, and 10% in financial services, with top holdings being NVIDIA (13.53%), Apple (5.96%), and Microsoft (5.96%), resulting in a more concentrated portfolio of 212 holdings [7] Investor Implications - VOO is suitable for investors seeking stability through broader diversification and lower maximum drawdown [8] - VOOG is aimed at investors willing to accept higher risk for greater growth potential, albeit with a higher expense ratio and lower dividend yield [9][10]

Core Insights - The article compares two popular ETFs, Invesco QQQ Trust (QQQ) and SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), highlighting their differences in cost, returns, and risk profiles [1][6]. Cost & Size Comparison - QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.20% while SPY has a lower expense ratio of 0.09% [2] - As of December 20, 2025, QQQ's one-year return is 18.97% compared to SPY's 15.13% [2] - QQQ offers a dividend yield of 0.46%, whereas SPY provides a higher yield of 1.06% [2] - QQQ has assets under management (AUM) of $403 billion, while SPY has a larger AUM of $701 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, QQQ experienced a maximum drawdown of -35.12%, while SPY had a lower drawdown of -24.50% [3] - An investment of $1,000 in QQQ would have grown to $1,990 over five years, compared to $1,844 for SPY [3] Portfolio Composition - SPY tracks the S&P 500 Index, holding 503 companies with a significant tilt towards technology (35%), financial services (14%), and consumer discretionary (11%) [4] - QQQ tracks the NASDAQ-100, with a heavier concentration in technology (55%), communication services (17%), and consumer cyclical (13%) [5] - The top three holdings in QQQ (Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple) account for 25.57% of its total assets, compared to 20.70% for SPY [8] Investment Implications - SPY is suitable for investors seeking broad-market diversification and lower volatility, while QQQ may appeal to those willing to take on more risk for potentially higher returns [6][9] - SPY's higher dividend yield and lower expense ratio make it attractive for income-seeking investors [7] - QQQ's performance is heavily influenced by its top tech holdings, which can lead to higher returns during favorable market conditions [8]

Explore how each ETF’s sector mix, risk profile, and cost structure could shape your growth investing strategy.Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF (VONG 0.47%) and iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO 1.17%) target different corners of the U.S. growth equity market, with VONG leaning large-cap and IWO focusing on small-cap stocks -- resulting in notable differences in cost, risk, and sector exposure.Both funds aim to capture growth in U.S. equities, but VONG tracks large, established companies from the Russell ...

Core Insights - The macroeconomic factors impacting the equities market, such as tariffs and interest rate policies, are also influencing fixed income markets, making it an opportune time for active fixed income strategies [1] - Active ETFs have seen a record number of launches in 2025, attracting nearly $340 billion in inflows, surpassing the combined inflows of 2021 to 2023 [2] - Vanguard is expanding its active fixed income offerings, supported by the expertise of the Vanguard Fixed Income Group [3] Active Fixed Income Options - The Vanguard Core Bond ETF (VCRB) offers a low expense ratio of 0.10% and provides diverse fixed income exposure, including U.S. investment-grade bonds and mortgage-backed securities [4] - The Vanguard Core-Plus Bond ETF (VPLS) includes a broader range of income opportunities, such as U.S. Treasuries and emerging market debt [5] - The Vanguard Core Tax-Exempt Bond ETF (VCRM) focuses on municipal debt, providing federal tax-free income [6] Short-Term Investment Strategies - Short-term bond funds can be a viable option for consumers looking to optimize cash for future expenses, alongside traditional instruments like money market accounts and CDs [7] - Vanguard offers three short-term bond ETFs: Vanguard Short Duration Tax-Exempt Bond ETF (VSDM), Vanguard Ultra-Short Bond ETF (VUSB), and Vanguard Short Duration Bond ETF (VSDB), which are low-cost and liquid [8][9] Sector Diversification - The Vanguard Multi-Sector Income Bond ETF (VGMS) is designed for investors seeking to diversify beyond Treasuries, especially during a rate-cutting cycle [11] - The Vanguard Government Securities Active ETF (VGVT) primarily invests in Treasuries but also includes agency-backed securities, with a portfolio composition of 58.7% Treasuries as of September 30 [12] High Yield Opportunities - The Vanguard High-Yield Active ETF (VGHY) is introduced as a new option for investors seeking higher yields, with a competitive expense ratio of 0.22% [14]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) focuses on mega-cap stocks, while the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) provides broader market exposure by tracking the full S&P 500 index [1][2] Cost & Size Comparison - MGK has an expense ratio of 0.07% and assets under management (AUM) of $32.9 billion, while VOO has a lower expense ratio of 0.03% and AUM of $800.2 billion [3] - The one-year return for MGK is 21.14%, compared to VOO's 12.67%, and MGK has a dividend yield of 0.38% versus VOO's 1.15% [3] Performance & Risk Metrics - Over five years, MGK experienced a maximum drawdown of -36.01%, while VOO had a drawdown of -24.52% [4] - An investment of $1,000 in MGK would grow to $2,100 over five years, compared to $1,861 for VOO [4] Portfolio Composition - VOO holds 504 stocks with a sector mix led by technology (36%), followed by financial services (13%) and consumer cyclical (11%) [5] - MGK is more concentrated with 66 holdings, heavily weighted towards technology (69%), and smaller allocations to consumer cyclical (16%) and healthcare (5%) [6] Investment Strategy - MGK's focus on mega-cap companies can lead to higher gains during tech rallies but also results in greater volatility due to its concentrated holdings [7] - VOO offers more diversification, including both large- and mega-cap companies, which may appeal to investors seeking stability [8][9]

Core Viewpoint - Merck's growth is heavily reliant on Keytruda, which poses risks as competition increases and patent expiration approaches [1][3][9] Sales Performance - Keytruda's sales surged 72% from $17 billion in 2021 to $29 billion in 2022, constituting 46% of Merck's total revenues [2][9] - The drug has been the primary driver of Merck's double-digit revenue growth over the past three years [2] Patent Expiration and Competition - Keytruda's U.S. market exclusivity is set to end in 2028, leading to anticipated biosimilar competition [3][4] - Sales are projected to peak at around $36 billion by 2028, with potential declines to $20 billion or below in the following years [3][5] Impact of Biosimilars - Historical examples show that sales can drop sharply with the entry of biosimilars, as seen with AbbVie's Humira and Roche's Herceptin [4] - Humira's sales fell nearly 60% from $21 billion in 2022 to under $9 billion, illustrating the disruptive nature of biosimilar competition [4] Future Growth Challenges - Merck is unlikely to maintain sales growth as Keytruda's sales are expected to decline significantly [5][6] - The company must find new revenue streams within the next three years to avoid slower or falling sales [7][9] Investment Implications - The situation highlights the need for a diversified investment portfolio to manage concentrated risks associated with reliance on a single product [10] - Merck's dependency on Keytruda represents both a current strength and a significant vulnerability for future growth [9][10]