CMCI vs VTI
VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, CMCI or VTI?
Commodities against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. CMCI led over 1Y and the full window, VTI over 3Y and 5Y.
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 | CMCI | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.67% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $3M | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 7.63% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 19 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +32.21%Best | +12.30% |
| 1Y Return | +23.92%Best | +16.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.92% | +21.01%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.75% | +12.36%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13705943.7% | 14.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | - | -35.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,923 | $17,908Best |
| Fund Family | VanEck | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Commodity | Equity |
| Style | Commodities | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Aug 21, 2023 | May 24, 2001 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 20, 2011 to Sep 18, 2026 (15.4 years).
CMCI 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 15.4 years both funds cover.
CMCI vs VTI Performance
VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF (CMCI) is an ETF from VanEck and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CMCI returned +23.92% while VTI returned +16.08%. Year to date, CMCI is up 32.21% versus a gain of 12.30% for VTI.
Over three years, CMCI compounded at +8.92% per year against +21.01% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +9.75% and +12.36% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, CMCI has the edge at +29.80% annualized vs +12.17%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CMCI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13705943.7% compared with 14.7% for VTI. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.07. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CMCI charges 0.67% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $67 vs $3 annually, a gap of $64 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CMCI currently yields 7.63% against 1.03% for VTI.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CMCI 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, CMCI or VTI?
CMCI has an expense ratio of 0.67% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $64 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CMCI or VTI?
Over the past year CMCI returned +23.92% vs +16.08% for VTI, so CMCI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), CMCI annualized +29.80% vs +12.17% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CMCI or VTI?
CMCI has been the more volatile fund at 13705943.7% annualized versus 14.7% for VTI.
Should I hold both CMCI and VTI?
CMCI and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of -0.07, 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, CMCI or VTI?
CMCI yields 7.63% while VTI yields 1.03%, so CMCI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than CMCI?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. CMCI led over 1Y and the full window, VTI over 3Y and 5Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.