GNR vs VTI
State Street SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, GNR or VTI?
Each has led over a different period.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. GNR led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 35.7%.
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 | GNR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.40% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $5.2B | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.46% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 112 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +21.76%Best | +13.02% |
| 1Y Return | +33.20%Best | +16.63% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.67% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.81% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.6% | 14.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -60.6% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,707 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.7% | 33.5%Best |
| Fund Family | State Street Investment Management | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 13, 2010 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 14, 2010 to Oct 14, 2026 (16.1 years).
GNR 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 16.1 years both funds cover.
GNR vs VTI Performance
State Street SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) is an ETF from State Street Investment Management and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year GNR returned +33.20% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, GNR is up 21.76% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, GNR compounded at +14.67% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +10.81% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +12.97% annualized vs +3.87%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
GNR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.6% compared with 14.5% 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 -60.6% for GNR 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 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GNR charges 0.40% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $40 vs $3 annually, a gap of $37 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GNR currently yields 2.46% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
30.9% of GNR's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 3.4% of VTI's money is in holdings GNR also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
35 positions in common, counted across the 94 positions we hold weights for in GNR and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 112 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,124 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for GNR (94.2% of the fund), and 9 for GNR that do not appear in VTI (14.3%).
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 GNR | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMExxonmobil Corp. | 4.59% | 0.90% | 3.69% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 2.68% | 0.53% | 2.15% |
| NEMNewmont Corp Common | 2.99% | 0.18% | 2.81% |
| CTVACorteva Inc Ctva | 2.51% | 0.08% | 2.43% |
| ADMArcher-daniels D | 1.87% | 0.05% | 1.82% |
| NUENucor Corp. | 1.31% | 0.08% | 1.23% |
| COPConocophillips Common Stock USD 0.01 | 1.12% | 0.22% | 0.90% |
| SWSmurfit WestRock plc Common Shares | 1.01% | 0.03% | 0.98% |
| PKGPackaging Corp. Of America | 0.93% | 0.03% | 0.90% |
| CFCf Industries Holdings Inc. | 0.91% | 0.03% | 0.88% |
30.9% of GNR 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, GNR or VTI?
GNR has an expense ratio of 0.40% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $37 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GNR or VTI?
Over the past year GNR returned +33.20% vs +16.63% for VTI, so GNR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), GNR annualized +3.87% vs +12.97% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GNR or VTI?
GNR has been the more volatile fund at 19.6% annualized versus 14.5% for VTI. Worst drawdown: GNR -60.6% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both GNR and VTI?
GNR and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, 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 GNR and VTI?
30.9% of GNR's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 3.4% of VTI's is in holdings GNR also owns. They hold 35 positions in common, counted across the 94 positions we hold weights for in GNR and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, GNR or VTI?
GNR yields 2.46% while VTI yields 1.06%, so GNR currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than GNR?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. GNR led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 35.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.