FFSM vs VTI
Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, FFSM or VTI?
Mid Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FFSM is less concentrated, with 13.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.5%.
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 | FFSM | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.43% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $1.4B | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.49% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 214 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +7.16% | +13.02%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.62% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.45% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.53% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.8% | 15.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -26.6% | -25.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,376 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 13.8%Best | 33.5% |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 2, 2021 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 4, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.7 years).
FFSM 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 5.7 years both funds cover.
FFSM vs VTI Performance
Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year FFSM returned +14.62% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, FFSM is up 7.16% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, FFSM compounded at +17.45% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +7.53% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +13.05% annualized vs +9.52%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FFSM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.8% compared with 15.3% 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 -26.6% for FFSM and -25.4% 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 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FFSM charges 0.43% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $43 vs $3 annually, a gap of $40 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FFSM currently yields 0.49% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
91.8% of FFSM's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 3.0% of VTI's money is in holdings FFSM also owns.
Most of FFSM is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
192 positions in common, counted across the 211 positions we hold weights for in FFSM and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 214 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,014 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for FFSM (94.6% of the fund), and 10 for FFSM that do not appear in VTI (4.2%).
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 FFSM | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ATIAti Inc | 1.72% | 0.04% | 1.68% |
| JLLJones Lang Lasalle Inc. | 1.52% | 0.02% | 1.50% |
| SNXSynnex Corp | 1.51% | 0.02% | 1.49% |
| FCFSFirstcash Inc | 1.40% | 0.01% | 1.39% |
| IESCIes Holdings, Inc. | 1.37% | 0.01% | 1.36% |
| SANMSanmina Corp | 1.33% | 0.01% | 1.32% |
| 0RMV:LNTechnipfmc Plc Ordinary Shares | 1.29% | 0.04% | 1.25% |
| ITTItt Inc | 1.23% | 0.02% | 1.21% |
| PFGCPerformance Food Group Co | 1.21% | 0.02% | 1.19% |
| CRSCarpenter Technology Corpcommon Stock | 1.20% | 0.03% | 1.17% |
91.8% of FFSM 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, FFSM or VTI?
FFSM has an expense ratio of 0.43% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $40 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FFSM or VTI?
Over the past year FFSM returned +14.62% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FFSM annualized +9.52% vs +13.05% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FFSM or VTI?
FFSM has been the more volatile fund at 18.8% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: FFSM -26.6% vs VTI -25.4%.
Should I hold both FFSM and VTI?
FFSM and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FFSM and VTI?
91.8% of FFSM's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 3.0% of VTI's is in holdings FFSM also owns. They hold 192 positions in common, counted across the 211 positions we hold weights for in FFSM and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, FFSM or VTI?
FFSM yields 0.49% while VTI yields 1.06%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than FFSM?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FFSM is less concentrated, with 13.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.