VSMV vs VTI
VictoryShares US Multi-Factor Minimum Volatility ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, VSMV or VTI?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.4%.
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 | VSMV | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $158M | $689.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.36% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 63 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +10.99% | +13.02%Best |
| 1Y Return | +15.62% | +16.63%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.70% | +21.97%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.11% | +11.99%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.0%Best | 16.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -31.4%Best | -35.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,934 | $17,616Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 47.4% | 33.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Victory Capital Management Inc. | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 21, 2017 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 22, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (9.3 years).
VSMV 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 9.3 years both funds cover.
VSMV vs VTI Performance
VictoryShares US Multi-Factor Minimum Volatility ETF (VSMV) is an ETF from Victory Capital Management Inc. and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year VSMV returned +15.62% while VTI returned +16.63%. Year to date, VSMV is up 10.99% versus a gain of 13.02% for VTI.
Over three years, VSMV compounded at +16.70% per year against +21.97% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +11.11% and +11.99% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +13.57% annualized vs +11.13%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.3% compared with 13.0% for VSMV. 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 -31.4% for VSMV 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 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
VSMV charges 0.35% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $3 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, VSMV currently yields 1.36% against 1.06% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
99.5% of VSMV's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 16.2% of VTI's money is in holdings VSMV also owns.
Most of VSMV is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
60 positions in common, counted across the 61 positions we hold weights for in VSMV and 3,441 in VTI, against full books of 63 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,096 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for VSMV (81.4% of the fund), and 0 for VSMV that do not appear in VTI (0.0%).
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 VSMV | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 11.92% | 6.30% | 5.62% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 5.34% | 0.51% | 4.83% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 4.00% | 0.87% | 3.13% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 3.88% | 0.90% | 2.98% |
| KLACKla-tencor | 4.44% | 0.31% | 4.13% |
| QCOMQualcomm, Inc. | 4.39% | 0.24% | 4.15% |
| CRMSalesforce Inc. | 3.95% | 0.27% | 3.68% |
| WMTWalmart, Inc. | 3.20% | 0.62% | 2.58% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp. | 2.73% | 0.57% | 2.16% |
| ALLAllstate Corp. | 3.17% | 0.09% | 3.08% |
99.5% of VSMV 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, VSMV or VTI?
VSMV has an expense ratio of 0.35% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, VSMV or VTI?
Over the past year VSMV returned +15.62% vs +16.63% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), VSMV annualized +11.13% vs +13.57% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, VSMV or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 16.3% annualized versus 13.0% for VSMV. Worst drawdown: VSMV -31.4% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both VSMV and VTI?
VSMV and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, 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 VSMV and VTI?
99.5% of VSMV's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 16.2% of VTI's is in holdings VSMV also owns. They hold 60 positions in common, counted across the 61 positions we hold weights for in VSMV and 3,441 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, VSMV or VTI?
VSMV yields 1.36% while VTI yields 1.06%, so VSMV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than VSMV?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 47.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.