CSM vs VTI
ProShares Large Cap Core Plus vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, CSM or VTI?
Nearly the same fund. VTI costs less.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. CSM led over the full window, VTI over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. CSM is less concentrated, with 29.3% 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 | CSM | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.45% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $517M | $690.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.02% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 308 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +9.62% | +13.35%Best |
| 1Y Return | +13.85% | +15.92%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.17% | +23.41%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.83%Tie | +12.83%Tie |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.9% | 14.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -36.1% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,286Tie | $18,286Tie |
| Top 10 Weight | 29.3%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | ProShares | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 13, 2009 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 14, 2009 to Oct 2, 2026 (17.2 years).
CSM 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 17.2 years both funds cover.
CSM vs VTI Performance
ProShares Large Cap Core Plus (CSM) is an ETF from ProShares and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CSM returned +13.85% while VTI returned +15.92%. Year to date, CSM is up 9.62% versus a gain of 13.35% for VTI.
Over three years, CSM compounded at +23.17% per year against +23.41% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +12.83% and +12.83% respectively. Across the full 17-year window we track, CSM has the edge at +14.70% annualized vs +13.61%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CSM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.9% compared with 14.7% for VTI. 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 -36.1% for CSM 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 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CSM charges 0.45% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $45 vs $3 annually, a gap of $42 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CSM currently yields 1.02% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
88.9% of CSM's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 73.4% of VTI's money is in holdings CSM also owns.
Most of CSM is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
288 positions in common, counted across the 298 positions we hold weights for in CSM and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 308 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 863 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for CSM (24.1% of the fund), and 3 for CSM that do not appear in VTI (5.2%).
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 CSM | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 5.21% | 6.40% | 1.19% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.94% | 6.29% | 1.35% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.75% | 4.79% | 1.04% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.76% | 3.65% | 0.89% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 1.91% | 2.90% | 0.99% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.53% | 2.56% | 1.03% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 1.47% | 2.31% | 0.84% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.50% | 1.70% | 0.20% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.42% | 1.29% | 0.13% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 0.83% | 1.22% | 0.39% |
88.9% of CSM 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, CSM or VTI?
CSM has an expense ratio of 0.45% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $42 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CSM or VTI?
Over the past year CSM returned +13.85% vs +15.92% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (17 years), CSM annualized +14.70% vs +13.61% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CSM or VTI?
CSM has been the more volatile fund at 14.9% annualized versus 14.7% for VTI. Worst drawdown: CSM -36.1% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both CSM and VTI?
CSM and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CSM and VTI?
88.9% of CSM's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 73.4% of VTI's is in holdings CSM also owns. They hold 288 positions in common, counted across the 298 positions we hold weights for in CSM and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, CSM or VTI?
CSM yields 1.02% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than CSM?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. CSM led over the full window, VTI over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. CSM is less concentrated, with 29.3% 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.