BSCQ vs VTI
Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, BSCQ or VTI?
Long Term Mid Quality 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 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.0%.
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 | BSCQ | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.10% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $3.2B | $690.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 4.05% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 256 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +2.89% | +14.43%Best |
| 1Y Return | +3.88% | +18.05%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +5.47% | +22.93%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.80% | +12.74%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 4.7%Best | 15.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -16.5%Best | -35.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $10,933 | $18,213Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 52.0% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity |
| Style | Long Term Mid Quality | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 13, 2016 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 16, 2016 to Oct 12, 2026 (10.1 years).
BSCQ 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
BSCQ vs VTI Performance
Invesco BulletShares 2026 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year BSCQ returned +3.88% while VTI returned +18.05%. Year to date, BSCQ is up 2.89% versus a gain of 14.43% for VTI.
Over three years, BSCQ compounded at +5.47% per year against +22.93% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +1.80% and +12.74% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +14.08% annualized vs +1.63%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 4.7% for BSCQ. 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 -16.5% for BSCQ 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 0.52. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BSCQ charges 0.10% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $10 vs $3 annually, a gap of $7 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BSCQ currently yields 4.05% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 119 holdings in BSCQ and 3,463 in VTI, totalling 100.0% and 98.1% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
The two holdings books were reported 46 days apart, BSCQ 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.
0 positions in common, counted across the 119 positions we hold weights for in BSCQ and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 256 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,149 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for BSCQ (97.5% of the fund), and 118 for BSCQ that do not appear in VTI (100.0%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BSCQ and VTI you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BSCQ or VTI?
BSCQ has an expense ratio of 0.10% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $7 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BSCQ or VTI?
Over the past year BSCQ returned +3.88% vs +18.05% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), BSCQ annualized +1.63% vs +14.08% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, BSCQ or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 4.7% for BSCQ. Worst drawdown: BSCQ -16.5% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both BSCQ and VTI?
BSCQ and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.52, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, BSCQ or VTI?
BSCQ yields 4.05% while VTI yields 1.03%, so BSCQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than BSCQ?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.