CGV vs VTI
Conductor Global Equity Value 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 | CGV | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.25% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $135M | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 4.87% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 90 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +11.62% | +12.65% | |
| 1Y Return | +19.34% | +21.39% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.52% | +21.54% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.11% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.4% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -16.6% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Conductor ETFs | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Apr 19, 2016 | May 24, 2001 |
CGV vs VTI Performance
Conductor Global Equity Value ETF (CGV) is a ETF from Conductor ETFs and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CGV returned +19.34% while VTI returned +21.39%. Year to date, CGV is up 11.62% versus a gain of 12.65% for VTI.
Over three years, CGV compounded at +13.52% per year against +21.54% for VTI. Across the full 4-year window we track, CGV has the edge at +9.83% 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 15.3% compared with 13.4% for CGV. 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 -16.6% for CGV 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 0.58. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGV charges 1.25% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $125 vs $3 annually, a gap of $122 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGV currently yields 4.87% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
CGV and VTI share 13 holdings out of 2855 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.3% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGV or VTI?
CGV has an expense ratio of 1.25% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $122 per year of difference.
Which performed better, CGV or VTI?
Over the past year CGV returned +19.34% vs +21.39% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), CGV annualized +9.83% vs +8.07% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, CGV or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 13.4% for CGV. Worst drawdown: CGV -16.6% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both CGV and VTI?
CGV and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.58, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between CGV and VTI?
CGV and VTI share 13 common holdings with a 0.3% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2855 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGV or VTI?
CGV yields 4.87% while VTI yields 1.07%, so CGV 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.