CDC vs VTI
VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, CDC or VTI?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. CDC led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. CDC is less concentrated, with 14.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%.
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 | CDC | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $738M | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 3.05% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 102 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +14.12%Best | +12.30% |
| 1Y Return | +16.20%Best | +16.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.58% | +21.01%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.58% | +12.36%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.4%Best | 15.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -21.4%Best | -35.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,752 | $17,908Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 14.8%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | Victory Capital Management Inc. | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 1, 2014 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 2, 2014 to Sep 18, 2026 (12.2 years).
CDC 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 12.2 years both funds cover.
CDC vs VTI Performance
VictoryShares US EQ Income Enhanced Volatility Wtd ETF (CDC) 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 CDC returned +16.20% while VTI returned +16.08%. Year to date, CDC is up 14.12% versus a gain of 12.30% for VTI.
Over three years, CDC compounded at +13.58% per year against +21.01% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +6.58% and +12.36% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +11.92% annualized vs +8.07%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.2% compared with 12.4% for CDC. 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 -21.4% for CDC 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 0.74. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CDC 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, CDC currently yields 3.05% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
97.5% of CDC's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 12.2% of VTI's money is in holdings CDC also owns.
Most of CDC is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
98 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in CDC and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 102 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,054 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for CDC (85.3% of the fund), and 2 for CDC 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 CDC | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 1.12% | 0.89% | 0.23% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 1.58% | 0.42% | 1.16% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 1.28% | 0.52% | 0.76% |
| DUKDuke Energy Corp | 1.53% | 0.14% | 1.39% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 1.20% | 0.47% | 0.73% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 1.06% | 0.61% | 0.45% |
| ADPAutomatic Data Processing, Inc. | 1.46% | 0.15% | 1.31% |
| EVRGEvergy Inc. | 1.54% | 0.03% | 1.51% |
| FEFirstenergy Corp. | 1.53% | 0.04% | 1.49% |
| WECWec Energy Group Inc. | 1.51% | 0.05% | 1.46% |
97.5% of CDC 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, CDC or VTI?
CDC 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, CDC or VTI?
Over the past year CDC returned +16.20% vs +16.08% for VTI, so CDC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), CDC annualized +8.07% vs +11.92% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CDC or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.2% annualized versus 12.4% for CDC. Worst drawdown: CDC -21.4% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both CDC and VTI?
CDC and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.74, 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 CDC and VTI?
97.5% of CDC's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 12.2% of VTI's is in holdings CDC also owns. They hold 98 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in CDC and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, CDC or VTI?
CDC yields 3.05% while VTI yields 1.03%, so CDC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than CDC?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. CDC led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. CDC is less concentrated, with 14.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.