BSMU vs VTI
Invesco BulletShares 2030 Municipal Bond ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BSMU | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $276M | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.81% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 1,709 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +0.35% | +13.14% | |
| 1Y Return | +3.17% | +22.35% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +3.22% | +21.83% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -0.81% | +12.01% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 7.2% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -19.5% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 16, 2020 | May 24, 2001 |
BSMU vs VTI Performance
Invesco BulletShares 2030 Municipal Bond ETF (BSMU) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year BSMU returned +3.17% while VTI returned +22.35%. Year to date, BSMU is up 0.35% versus a gain of 13.14% for VTI.
Over three years, BSMU compounded at +3.22% per year against +21.83% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are -0.81% and +12.01% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.09% annualized vs +0.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 7.2% for BSMU. 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 -19.5% for BSMU and -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.65. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BSMU charges 0.18% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $3 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BSMU currently yields 2.81% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
BSMU and VTI share 0 holdings out of 3246 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BSMU or VTI?
BSMU has an expense ratio of 0.18% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $15 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BSMU or VTI?
Over the past year BSMU returned +3.17% vs +22.35% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), BSMU annualized +0.20% vs +8.09% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BSMU or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 7.2% for BSMU. Worst drawdown: BSMU -19.5% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both BSMU and VTI?
BSMU and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.65, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BSMU and VTI?
BSMU and VTI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 3246 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BSMU or VTI?
BSMU yields 2.81% while VTI yields 1.07%, so BSMU currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.