ALRG vs VTI
Allspring LT Large Core ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, ALRG or VTI?
ALRG has been ahead.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. ALRG led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.9%.
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 | ALRG | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.28% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $8M | $690.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.42% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 51 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +13.61%Best | +13.35% |
| 1Y Return | +17.06%Best | +15.92% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +23.41% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.83% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.9% | 11.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -9.3% | -8.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.2 years | $12,659Best | $12,466 |
| Top 10 Weight | 46.9% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | Allspring Global Investments | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 8, 2025 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 8, 2025 to Oct 2, 2026 (1.2 years).
ALRG 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 1.2 years both funds cover.
ALRG vs VTI Performance
Allspring LT Large Core ETF (ALRG) is an ETF from Allspring Global Investments and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year ALRG returned +17.06% while VTI returned +15.92%. Year to date, ALRG is up 13.61% versus a gain of 13.35% for VTI.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ALRG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 11.9% compared with 11.8% 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 -9.3% for ALRG and -8.9% 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 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ALRG charges 0.28% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $28 vs $3 annually, a gap of $25 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ALRG currently yields 0.42% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
90.8% of ALRG's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 39.8% of VTI's money is in holdings ALRG also owns.
Most of ALRG is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 46 days apart, ALRG as of Sep 15, 2026 and VTI as of Jul 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
44 positions in common, counted across the 49 positions we hold weights for in ALRG and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 51 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 ALRG (57.8% of the fund), and 0 for ALRG 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 ALRG | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 9.11% | 6.29% | 2.82% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 7.79% | 4.79% | 3.00% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 4.86% | 6.40% | 1.54% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.93% | 3.65% | 1.28% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 5.51% | 2.31% | 3.20% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.20% | 2.56% | 1.64% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.57% | 1.70% | 0.87% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 2.80% | 1.31% | 1.49% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.64% | 1.35% | 1.29% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 2.52% | 1.08% | 1.44% |
90.8% of ALRG 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, ALRG or VTI?
ALRG has an expense ratio of 0.28% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $25 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ALRG or VTI?
Over the past year ALRG returned +17.06% vs +15.92% for VTI, so ALRG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), ALRG annualized +21.71% vs +20.16% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ALRG or VTI?
ALRG has been the more volatile fund at 11.9% annualized versus 11.8% for VTI. Worst drawdown: ALRG -9.3% vs VTI -8.9%.
Should I hold both ALRG and VTI?
ALRG and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 ALRG and VTI?
90.8% of ALRG's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 39.8% of VTI's is in holdings ALRG also owns. They hold 44 positions in common, counted across the 49 positions we hold weights for in ALRG and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, ALRG or VTI?
ALRG yields 0.42% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than ALRG?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. ALRG led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.