FSGS vs VTI
First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, FSGS or VTI?
Small Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FSGS is less concentrated, with 13.6% 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 | FSGS | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.61% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $29M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.03% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 202 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +5.32% | +13.02%Best |
| 1Y Return | +3.32% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +9.74% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.69% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.7% | 16.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -45.0% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $11,986 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 13.6%Best | 33.5% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 20, 2017 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 22, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (9.3 years).
FSGS 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 9.3 years both funds cover.
FSGS vs VTI Performance
First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year FSGS returned +3.32% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, FSGS is up 5.32% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, FSGS compounded at +9.74% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +3.69% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +13.57% annualized vs +6.35%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FSGS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.7% compared with 16.3% 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 -45.0% for FSGS 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 0.86. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FSGS charges 0.61% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $61 vs $3 annually, a gap of $58 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FSGS currently yields 0.03% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
98.8% of FSGS's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 1.4% of VTI's money is in holdings FSGS also owns.
Most of FSGS is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
99 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in FSGS and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 202 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,080 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for FSGS (96.2% of the fund), and 0 for FSGS that do not appear in VTI (0.0%).
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 FSGS | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESTCElastic N.V. Ordinary Shares | 1.53% | 0.01% | 1.52% |
| VEEVVeeva Systems Inc | 1.40% | 0.06% | 1.34% |
| ANFAbercrombie & Fitch Co. Class A | 1.43% | 0.01% | 1.42% |
| HALOHalozyme Therapeutics Inc | 1.41% | 0.02% | 1.39% |
| INSPInspire Medical Systems, Inc. | 1.38% | 0.00% | 1.38% |
| NUTXNutex Health Inc Common Stock | 1.33% | 0.00% | 1.33% |
| DOCUDocusign Inc | 1.31% | 0.02% | 1.29% |
| DOCSDoximity Inc | 1.30% | 0.00% | 1.30% |
| IDCCInterdigital Inc | 1.29% | 0.01% | 1.28% |
| MANHManhattan Associates Inc | 1.25% | 0.02% | 1.23% |
98.8% of FSGS 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, FSGS or VTI?
FSGS has an expense ratio of 0.61% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $58 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FSGS or VTI?
Over the past year FSGS returned +3.32% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), FSGS annualized +6.35% vs +13.57% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FSGS or VTI?
FSGS has been the more volatile fund at 20.7% annualized versus 16.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: FSGS -45.0% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both FSGS and VTI?
FSGS and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.86, 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 FSGS and VTI?
98.8% of FSGS's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 1.4% of VTI's is in holdings FSGS also owns. They hold 99 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in FSGS and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, FSGS or VTI?
FSGS yields 0.03% while VTI yields 1.06%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than FSGS?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FSGS is less concentrated, with 13.6% 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.