CPII vs VTI
American Beacon Ionic Inflation Protection ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, CPII or VTI?
Inflation Protection against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | CPII | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.70% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $12M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 4.65% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 16 | 3,524 |
| Volatility (annualized) | 5.0%Best | 16.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -6.4%Best | -19.3% |
| $10,000 over 2.8 years | $11,068 | $14,372Best |
| Top 10 Weight | - | 33.5% |
| Fund Family | American Beacon Funds | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity |
| Style | Inflation Protection | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 28, 2022 | May 24, 2001 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized).
The two price series end 551 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. CPII has data through Apr 11, 2025 and VTI through Oct 14, 2026.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 29, 2022 to Apr 11, 2025 (2.8 years).
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.7% compared with 5.0% for CPII. 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 -6.4% for CPII and -19.3% 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 -0.19. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CPII charges 0.70% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $70 vs $3 annually, a gap of $67 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CPII currently yields 4.65% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 8 holdings in CPII and 3,441 in VTI, totalling 97.9% 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 8 positions we hold weights for in CPII and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 16 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 CPII (97.6% of the fund), and 8 for CPII that do not appear in VTI (97.9%).
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 CPII 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, CPII or VTI?
CPII has an expense ratio of 0.70% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $67 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which is riskier, CPII or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 16.7% annualized versus 5.0% for CPII. Worst drawdown: CPII -6.4% vs VTI -19.3%.
Should I hold both CPII and VTI?
CPII and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of -0.19, 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, CPII or VTI?
CPII yields 4.65% while VTI yields 1.06%, so CPII currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than CPII?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.