IHI vs VTI
iShares US Medical Devices ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, IHI or VTI?
All Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IHI led over the full window, VTI over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 75.7%.
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 | IHI | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.37% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $3.6B | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.51% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 51 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | -14.50% | +13.02%Best |
| 1Y Return | -10.91% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +5.26% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -2.98% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.4% | 15.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -49.7%Best | -56.6% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $8,596 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 75.7% | 33.5%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | All Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 1, 2006 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 5, 2006 to Oct 14, 2026 (20.4 years).
IHI 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 20.4 years both funds cover.
IHI vs VTI Performance
iShares US Medical Devices ETF (IHI) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IHI returned -10.91% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, IHI is down 14.50% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, IHI compounded at +5.26% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are -2.98% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, IHI has the edge at +9.61% annualized vs +9.30%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IHI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.4% compared with 15.7% 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 -49.7% for IHI and -56.6% 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 0.77. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IHI charges 0.37% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $37 vs $3 annually, a gap of $34 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IHI currently yields 0.51% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
87.7% of IHI's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 1.2% of VTI's money is in holdings IHI also owns.
Most of IHI is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
46 positions in common, counted across the 50 positions we hold weights for in IHI and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 51 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,135 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for IHI (96.4% of the fund), and 3 for IHI that do not appear in VTI (12.2%).
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 IHI | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABTAbbott Laboratories | 17.57% | 0.26% | 17.31% |
| ISRGIntuitive Surgical Inc | 14.89% | 0.18% | 14.71% |
| SYKStryker Corp 3.375 11/25 | 4.52% | 0.15% | 4.37% |
| DXCMDexcom Inc | 4.60% | 0.05% | 4.55% |
| IDXXIdexx Laboratories Inc_None_0 | 4.59% | 0.06% | 4.53% |
| BDXBecton Dickinson And Co. | 4.52% | 0.07% | 4.45% |
| EWEdwards Lifesciences Corp | 4.51% | 0.07% | 4.44% |
| RMDResmed Inc. | 4.51% | 0.05% | 4.46% |
| BSXBoston Scientific Corp. | 4.39% | 0.10% | 4.29% |
| GEHCGe Healthcare Technologies | 4.09% | 0.04% | 4.05% |
87.7% of IHI 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, IHI or VTI?
IHI has an expense ratio of 0.37% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $34 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IHI or VTI?
Over the past year IHI returned -10.91% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), IHI annualized +9.61% vs +9.30% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IHI or VTI?
IHI has been the more volatile fund at 17.4% annualized versus 15.7% for VTI. Worst drawdown: IHI -49.7% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both IHI and VTI?
IHI and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.77, 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 IHI and VTI?
87.7% of IHI's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 1.2% of VTI's is in holdings IHI also owns. They hold 46 positions in common, counted across the 50 positions we hold weights for in IHI and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IHI or VTI?
IHI yields 0.51% while VTI yields 1.06%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than IHI?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IHI led over the full window, VTI over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 75.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.