BZQ vs VTI

BZQ vs VTI

Which is better, BZQ or VTI?

Trading-Inverse Equity against Large Cap Blend.

VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: VTIHigher Returns: VTI

MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.

Side-by-Side Comparison

MetricBZQVTI
Expense Ratio0.95%0.03%Best
AUM$2M$689.2B
Dividend Yield7.67%1.06%
Holdings53,524
YTD Return-51.70%+13.02%Best
1Y Return-63.72%+16.63%Best
3Y Return (annualized)-34.78%+21.97%Best
5Y Return (annualized)-34.64%+11.99%Best
Volatility (annualized)58.3%14.8%Best
Max Drawdown--35.0%
$10,000 over 5 years$1,193$17,616Best
Fund FamilyProSharesVanguard (US)
CategoryAlternativeEquity
StyleTrading-Inverse EquityLarge Cap Blend
InceptionJun 16, 2009May 24, 2001

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 19, 2009 to Oct 14, 2026 (17.3 years).

BZQ vs VTI growth

Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

BZQ vs VTI Performance

ProShares UltraShort MSCI Brazil Capped (BZQ) is an ETF from ProShares and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year BZQ returned -63.72% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, BZQ is down 51.70% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.

Over three years, BZQ compounded at -34.78% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are -34.64% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +13.37% annualized vs -30.73%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

BZQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 58.3% compared with 14.8% for VTI. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.47. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.

Fees and Cost Over Time

BZQ charges 0.95% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $95 vs $3 annually, a gap of $92 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BZQ currently yields 7.67% against 1.06% for VTI.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of BZQ and VTI you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

BZQVTI

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, BZQ or VTI?

BZQ has an expense ratio of 0.95% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $92 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, BZQ or VTI?

Over the past year BZQ returned -63.72% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), BZQ annualized -30.73% vs +13.37% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, BZQ or VTI?

BZQ has been the more volatile fund at 58.3% annualized versus 14.8% for VTI.

Should I hold both BZQ and VTI?

BZQ and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of -0.47, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, BZQ or VTI?

BZQ yields 7.67% while VTI yields 1.06%, so BZQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VTI better than BZQ?

VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.