GDXW vs VTI

GDXW vs VTI

Which is better, GDXW or VTI?

Multi Alternative against Large Cap Blend.

VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y.

Lower Fees: VTIHigher Returns (1Y): VTI

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

MetricGDXWVTI
Expense Ratio0.99%0.03%Best
AUM$77M$690.1B
Dividend Yield49.77%1.03%
Holdings123,524
YTD Return-26.42%+14.35%Best
1Y Return-11.04%+17.97%Best
3Y Return (annualized)-+22.47%
5Y Return (annualized)-+12.62%
Volatility (annualized)65.1%13.1%Best
Fund FamilyRoundhill InvestmentsVanguard (US)
CategoryAlternativeEquity
StyleMulti AlternativeLarge Cap Blend
InceptionOct 30, 2025May 24, 2001

Not shown on this pair: Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window, Top 10 Weight.

GDXW 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

GDXW vs VTI Performance

Roundhill Gold Miners WeeklyPay ETF (GDXW) is an ETF from Roundhill Investments and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year GDXW returned -11.04% while VTI returned +17.97%. Year to date, GDXW is down 26.42% versus a gain of 14.35% for VTI.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

GDXW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 65.1% compared with 13.1% for VTI. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.17. They move largely independently of each other.

Fees and Cost Over Time

GDXW charges 0.99% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $99 vs $3 annually, a gap of $96 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GDXW currently yields 49.77% against 1.03% for VTI.

Holdings Overlap

We hold position weights for 1 holding in GDXW and 3,463 in VTI, totalling 9.0% and 98.1% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.

The two holdings books were reported 46 days apart, GDXW as of Sep 15, 2026 and VTI as of Jul 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.

0 positions in common, counted across the 1 positions we hold weights for in GDXW and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 12 and 3,524.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of GDXW and VTI you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

GDXWVTI

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GDXW or VTI?

GDXW has an expense ratio of 0.99% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $96 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, GDXW or VTI?

Over the past year GDXW returned -11.04% vs +17.97% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, GDXW or VTI?

GDXW has been the more volatile fund at 65.1% annualized versus 13.1% for VTI.

Should I hold both GDXW and VTI?

GDXW and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.17, 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, GDXW or VTI?

GDXW yields 49.77% while VTI yields 1.03%, so GDXW currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VTI better than GDXW?

VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.