PSCI vs VTI
Invesco S&P SmallCap Industrials ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, PSCI 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. PSCI is less concentrated, with 22.9% 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 | PSCI | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.29% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $267M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.34% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 192 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +4.45% | +13.02%Best |
| 1Y Return | +8.00% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.14% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.97% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.6% | 14.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -46.3% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,600 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 22.9%Best | 33.5% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 7, 2010 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 7, 2010 to Oct 14, 2026 (16.5 years).
PSCI 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 16.5 years both funds cover.
PSCI vs VTI Performance
Invesco S&P SmallCap Industrials ETF (PSCI) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year PSCI returned +8.00% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, PSCI is up 4.45% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, PSCI compounded at +18.14% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +11.97% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +12.25% annualized vs +12.07%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PSCI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.6% compared with 14.9% 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 -46.3% for PSCI 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
PSCI charges 0.29% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $29 vs $3 annually, a gap of $26 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PSCI currently yields 1.34% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
96.2% of PSCI's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.4% of VTI's money is in holdings PSCI also owns.
Most of PSCI is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
93 positions in common, counted across the 96 positions we hold weights for in PSCI and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 192 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,117 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for PSCI (97.2% of the fund), and 3 for PSCI 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 PSCI | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| PAYCPaycom Software Inc . | 2.74% | 0.01% | 2.73% |
| ACAArcosa Inc | 2.31% | 0.01% | 2.30% |
| ESEEsco Technologies Inc | 2.29% | 0.01% | 2.28% |
| FSSFederal Signal Corp | 2.28% | 0.01% | 2.27% |
| NPOEnpro Industries Inc | 2.26% | 0.01% | 2.25% |
| ZWSZurn Elkay Water Solutions | 2.26% | 0.01% | 2.25% |
| MATXMatson Inc | 2.22% | 0.01% | 2.21% |
| AWIArmstrong World Industries Inc | 2.22% | 0.01% | 2.21% |
| ECGEverus Construction Grou W/I Common Stock | 2.02% | 0.01% | 2.01% |
| BLDRBuilders Firstsource Inc | 1.95% | 0.01% | 1.94% |
96.2% of PSCI 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, PSCI or VTI?
PSCI has an expense ratio of 0.29% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $26 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, PSCI or VTI?
Over the past year PSCI returned +8.00% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), PSCI annualized +12.07% vs +12.25% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, PSCI or VTI?
PSCI has been the more volatile fund at 21.6% annualized versus 14.9% for VTI. Worst drawdown: PSCI -46.3% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both PSCI and VTI?
PSCI 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 PSCI and VTI?
96.2% of PSCI's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.4% of VTI's is in holdings PSCI also owns. They hold 93 positions in common, counted across the 96 positions we hold weights for in PSCI and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, PSCI or VTI?
PSCI yields 1.34% while VTI yields 1.06%, so PSCI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than PSCI?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. PSCI is less concentrated, with 22.9% 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.