CPTL vs VTI
Global X Morningstar Capital Allocation Leaders ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, CPTL or VTI?
Nearly the same fund. VTI costs less.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. CPTL led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%.
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 | CPTL | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $114M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.34% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 314 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +13.20%Best | +13.02% |
| 1Y Return | +17.16%Best | +16.63% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.24% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.08% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.7%Tie | 15.7%Tie |
| Max Drawdown | -36.2% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,164 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.9% | 33.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Global X by mirae Asset | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 11, 2016 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 12, 2016 to Oct 14, 2026 (10.3 years).
CPTL 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 10.3 years both funds cover.
CPTL vs VTI Performance
Global X Morningstar Capital Allocation Leaders ETF (CPTL) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CPTL returned +17.16% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, CPTL is up 13.20% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, CPTL compounded at +19.24% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +10.08% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +13.61% annualized vs +12.82%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CPTL and VTI have been equally volatile, both at 15.7% annualized.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -36.2% for CPTL 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 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CPTL 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, CPTL currently yields 2.34% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
99.3% of CPTL's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 56.8% of VTI's money is in holdings CPTL also owns.
Most of CPTL is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
149 positions in common, counted across the 155 positions we hold weights for in CPTL and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 314 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,008 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for CPTL (40.9% of the fund), and 5 for CPTL that do not appear in VTI (0.6%).
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.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CPTL | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 4.78% | 6.88% | 2.10% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.77% | 6.30% | 1.53% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.52% | 5.11% | 0.59% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.95% | 3.41% | 0.54% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.82% | 2.38% | 1.44% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.84% | 1.40% | 2.44% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.43% | 2.70% | 0.27% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.60% | 1.04% | 2.56% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 3.24% | 1.33% | 1.91% |
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 3.26% | 1.23% | 2.03% |
99.3% of CPTL is already inside VTI.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CPTL or VTI?
CPTL 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, CPTL or VTI?
Over the past year CPTL returned +17.16% vs +16.63% for VTI, so CPTL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), CPTL annualized +12.82% vs +13.61% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CPTL or VTI?
CPTL and VTI have been equally volatile, both at 15.7% annualized. Worst drawdown: CPTL -36.2% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both CPTL and VTI?
CPTL and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, 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.
What is the holdings overlap between CPTL and VTI?
99.3% of CPTL's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 56.8% of VTI's is in holdings CPTL also owns. They hold 149 positions in common, counted across the 155 positions we hold weights for in CPTL and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, CPTL or VTI?
CPTL yields 2.34% while VTI yields 1.06%, so CPTL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than CPTL?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. CPTL led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.