JSML vs VTI
Janus Henderson Small Cap Growth Alpha ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, JSML or VTI?
Small Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. JSML is less concentrated, with 18.4% 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 | JSML | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.30% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $358M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.14% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 122 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +16.45%Best | +13.02% |
| 1Y Return | +15.65% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.72% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.22% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.8% | 15.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -39.6% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,522 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 18.4%Best | 33.5% |
| Fund Family | Janus Henderson Investors | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 23, 2016 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 25, 2016 to Oct 14, 2026 (10.6 years).
JSML 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 10.6 years both funds cover.
JSML vs VTI Performance
Janus Henderson Small Cap Growth Alpha ETF (JSML) is an ETF from Janus Henderson Investors and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year JSML returned +15.65% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, JSML is up 16.45% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, JSML compounded at +20.72% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +6.22% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +14.22% annualized vs +12.67%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
JSML has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.8% compared with 15.5% 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 -39.6% for JSML 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 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JSML charges 0.30% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $30 vs $3 annually, a gap of $27 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JSML currently yields 1.14% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
93.6% of JSML's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.5% of VTI's money is in holdings JSML also owns.
Most of JSML is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
112 positions in common, counted across the 119 positions we hold weights for in JSML and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 122 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,107 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for JSML (97.1% of the fund), and 3 for JSML that do not appear in VTI (3.9%).
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 JSML | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| TNETTrinet Group Incinary | 2.21% | 0.00% | 2.21% |
| WHDCactus Inc | 2.06% | 0.01% | 2.05% |
| RHPRyman Hospitality Properties | 1.97% | 0.01% | 1.96% |
| VCTRVictory Receivables Corp | 1.88% | 0.01% | 1.87% |
| CVLTCommvault Systems Inc | 1.87% | 0.01% | 1.86% |
| ENSEnersys | 1.81% | 0.01% | 1.80% |
| TENBTenable Holdings Inc Com | 1.74% | 0.01% | 1.73% |
| CDNACaredx Inc | 1.66% | 0.00% | 1.66% |
| QLYSQualys Inc | 1.61% | 0.01% | 1.60% |
| STEPStepstone Group Lp | 1.60% | 0.01% | 1.59% |
93.6% of JSML 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, JSML or VTI?
JSML has an expense ratio of 0.30% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $27 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JSML or VTI?
Over the past year JSML returned +15.65% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), JSML annualized +12.67% vs +14.22% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JSML or VTI?
JSML has been the more volatile fund at 22.8% annualized versus 15.5% for VTI. Worst drawdown: JSML -39.6% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both JSML and VTI?
JSML and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, 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 JSML and VTI?
93.6% of JSML's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.5% of VTI's is in holdings JSML also owns. They hold 112 positions in common, counted across the 119 positions we hold weights for in JSML and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, JSML or VTI?
JSML yields 1.14% while VTI yields 1.06%, so JSML currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than JSML?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. JSML is less concentrated, with 18.4% 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.