QWLD vs VTI
State Street SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, QWLD or VTI?
VTI has been ahead.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. QWLD is less concentrated, with 17.6% 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 | QWLD | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.30% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $177M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.80% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 1,281 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +9.87% | +13.02%Best |
| 1Y Return | +13.93% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.05% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.17% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.6%Best | 15.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -31.9%Best | -35.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,230 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 17.6%Best | 33.5% |
| Fund Family | State Street Investment Management | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 4, 2014 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 5, 2014 to Oct 14, 2026 (12.4 years).
QWLD 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 12.4 years both funds cover.
QWLD vs VTI Performance
State Street SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD) 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 QWLD returned +13.93% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, QWLD is up 9.87% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, QWLD compounded at +17.05% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +10.17% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +11.99% annualized vs +8.95%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.1% compared with 12.6% for QWLD. 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 -31.9% for QWLD 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 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QWLD 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, QWLD currently yields 1.80% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
66.2% of QWLD's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 88.4% of VTI's money is in holdings QWLD also owns.
Most of VTI is already inside QWLD. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
480 positions in common, counted across the 1,197 positions we hold weights for in QWLD and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 1,281 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 682 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for QWLD (9.4% of the fund), and 22 for QWLD that do not appear in VTI (2.1%).
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 QWLD | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 2.38% | 6.88% | 4.50% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 2.54% | 6.30% | 3.76% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.00% | 5.11% | 2.11% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.62% | 2.38% | 0.76% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.53% | 3.41% | 2.88% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 1.06% | 2.70% | 1.64% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.97% | 1.70% | 0.27% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 0.94% | 2.12% | 1.18% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.32% | 1.33% | 0.01% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 1.34% | 0.87% | 0.47% |
88.4% of VTI is already inside QWLD.
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, QWLD or VTI?
QWLD 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, QWLD or VTI?
Over the past year QWLD returned +13.93% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), QWLD annualized +8.95% vs +11.99% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QWLD or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.1% annualized versus 12.6% for QWLD. Worst drawdown: QWLD -31.9% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both QWLD and VTI?
QWLD and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between QWLD and VTI?
88.4% of VTI's money is in holdings QWLD also owns. 88.4% of VTI's is in holdings QWLD also owns. They hold 480 positions in common, counted across the 1,197 positions we hold weights for in QWLD and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, QWLD or VTI?
QWLD yields 1.80% while VTI yields 1.06%, so QWLD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than QWLD?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. QWLD is less concentrated, with 17.6% 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.