COSW vs VTI

COSW vs VTI

Which is better, COSW or VTI?

VTI has been ahead.

VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y.

Lower Fees: VTIHigher Returns (1Y): 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

MetricCOSWVTI
Expense Ratio0.99%0.03%Best
AUM$11M$689.2B
Dividend Yield28.62%1.06%
Holdings153,524
YTD Return+1.90%+13.02%Best
1Y Return-9.96%+16.63%Best
3Y Return (annualized)-+21.97%
5Y Return (annualized)-+11.99%
Volatility (annualized)22.6%13.1%Best
Fund FamilyRoundhill InvestmentsVanguard (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionOct 23, 2025May 24, 2001

Not shown on this pair: Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window, Top 10 Weight.

COSW 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.

COSW vs VTI Performance

Roundhill COST WeeklyPay ETF (COSW) is an ETF from Roundhill Investments and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year COSW returned -9.96% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, COSW is up 1.90% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

COSW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.6% compared with 13.1% 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 0.00. They move largely independently of each other.

Fees and Cost Over Time

COSW charges 0.99% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $99 vs $3 annually, a gap of $96 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, COSW currently yields 28.62% against 1.06% for VTI.

Holdings Overlap

VTI already in COSW0.6%

At least 0.6% of VTI's money is in holdings COSW also owns.

Stated as a floor: for COSW, our book for it covers 13.3% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.

We cannot see either book well enough to say how much of this pair is duplicated.

1 positions in common, counted across the 2 positions we hold weights for in COSW and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 15 and 3,524.

Top Shared Holdings

StockWeight in COSWWeight in VTIDifference
COSTCostco Wholesale Corp.4.95%0.57%4.38%

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

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

COSWVTI

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, COSW or VTI?

COSW has an expense ratio of 0.99% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $96 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, COSW or VTI?

Over the past year COSW returned -9.96% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, COSW or VTI?

COSW has been the more volatile fund at 22.6% annualized versus 13.1% for VTI.

Should I hold both COSW and VTI?

COSW and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.00, 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, COSW or VTI?

COSW yields 28.62% while VTI yields 1.06%, so COSW currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VTI better than COSW?

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