CRMG vs VTI
Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, CRMG or VTI?
Trading-Leveraged Equity 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 | CRMG | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.78% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $98M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 12 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | -34.11% | +13.02%Best |
| 1Y Return | -29.85% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.97% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.99% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 101.1% | 11.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -79.8% | -8.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.5 years | $6,294 | $15,309Best |
| Fund Family | Leverage Shares | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Trading-Leveraged Equity | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 4, 2025 | May 24, 2001 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 4, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.5 years).
CRMG 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 1.5 years both funds cover.
CRMG vs VTI Performance
Leverage Shares 2X Long CRM Daily ETF (CRMG) is an ETF from Leverage Shares and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CRMG returned -29.85% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, CRMG is down 34.11% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CRMG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 101.1% compared with 11.8% for VTI. 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 -79.8% for CRMG and -8.9% 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 0.08. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CRMG charges 0.78% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $78 vs $3 annually, a gap of $75 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CRMG currently yields 0.00% against 1.06% for VTI.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CRMG 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, CRMG or VTI?
CRMG has an expense ratio of 0.78% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $75 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CRMG or VTI?
Over the past year CRMG returned -29.85% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), CRMG annualized -26.56% vs +32.83% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CRMG or VTI?
CRMG has been the more volatile fund at 101.1% annualized versus 11.8% for VTI. Worst drawdown: CRMG -79.8% vs VTI -8.9%.
Should I hold both CRMG and VTI?
CRMG and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.08, 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, CRMG or VTI?
CRMG yields 0.00% while VTI yields 1.06%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than CRMG?
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.