CFA vs VTI
VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, CFA or VTI?
VTI has been ahead.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.7%.
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
| Metric | CFA | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $520M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.27% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 502 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +8.05% | +13.02%Best |
| 1Y Return | +9.75% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.22% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.44% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.8%Best | 15.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -37.9% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,316 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 58.7% | 33.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Victory Capital Management Inc. | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 1, 2014 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 2, 2014 to Oct 14, 2026 (12.3 years).
CFA 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 covers the 12.3 years both funds cover.
CFA vs VTI Performance
VictoryShares US 500 Volatility Weighted ETF (CFA) is an ETF from Victory Capital Management Inc. and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CFA returned +9.75% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, CFA is up 8.05% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, CFA compounded at +14.22% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +7.44% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +11.90% annualized vs +9.43%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.2% compared with 14.8% for CFA. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -37.9% for CFA and -35.0% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CFA charges 0.35% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $3 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CFA currently yields 1.27% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 50 holdings in CFA and 3,441 in VTI, totalling 101.2% and 98.1% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 50 positions we hold weights for in CFA and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 502 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,156 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for CFA (97.6% of the fund), and 0 for CFA that do not appear in VTI (0.0%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CFA and VTI you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CFA or VTI?
CFA has an expense ratio of 0.35% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CFA or VTI?
Over the past year CFA returned +9.75% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), CFA annualized +9.43% vs +11.90% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CFA or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.2% annualized versus 14.8% for CFA. Worst drawdown: CFA -37.9% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both CFA and VTI?
CFA and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, CFA or VTI?
CFA yields 1.27% while VTI yields 1.06%, so CFA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than CFA?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 58.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.