SFLR vs VTI
Innovator Equity Managed Floor ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, SFLR or VTI?
Nearly the same fund. VTI costs less.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.8%.
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 | SFLR | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.89% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $2.3B | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.24% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 576 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +7.06% | +13.02%Best |
| 1Y Return | +10.25% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.43% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.99% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.2%Best | 13.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -12.1%Best | -19.3% |
| $10,000 over 3.9 years | $17,834 | $21,106Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 39.8% | 33.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Innovator ETFs Trust | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Nov 8, 2022 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 9, 2022 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.9 years).
SFLR 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 3.9 years both funds cover.
SFLR vs VTI Performance
Innovator Equity Managed Floor ETF (SFLR) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year SFLR returned +10.25% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, SFLR is up 7.06% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, SFLR compounded at +15.43% per year against +21.97% for VTI. Across the full 4-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +21.11% annualized vs +15.99%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.2% compared with 9.2% for SFLR. 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 -12.1% for SFLR and -19.3% 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 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
SFLR charges 0.89% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $89 vs $3 annually, a gap of $86 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, SFLR currently yields 0.24% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
95.5% of SFLR's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 61.6% of VTI's money is in holdings SFLR also owns.
Most of SFLR is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
169 positions in common, counted across the 183 positions we hold weights for in SFLR and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 576 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 989 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for SFLR (36.0% of the fund), and 11 for SFLR that do not appear in VTI (1.5%).
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 SFLR | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.36% | 6.88% | 1.48% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.42% | 6.30% | 1.12% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.59% | 5.11% | 0.48% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.79% | 3.41% | 0.38% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.08% | 2.70% | 0.38% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.64% | 2.38% | 0.26% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.64% | 2.12% | 0.52% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.27% | 1.70% | 0.57% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.17% | 1.46% | 0.71% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.61% | 1.40% | 0.21% |
95.5% of SFLR 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, SFLR or VTI?
SFLR has an expense ratio of 0.89% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $86 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, SFLR or VTI?
Over the past year SFLR returned +10.25% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), SFLR annualized +15.99% vs +21.11% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, SFLR or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 13.2% annualized versus 9.2% for SFLR. Worst drawdown: SFLR -12.1% vs VTI -19.3%.
Should I hold both SFLR and VTI?
SFLR and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, 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 SFLR and VTI?
95.5% of SFLR's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 61.6% of VTI's is in holdings SFLR also owns. They hold 169 positions in common, counted across the 183 positions we hold weights for in SFLR and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, SFLR or VTI?
SFLR yields 0.24% while VTI yields 1.06%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than SFLR?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.