CZA vs VTI
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, CZA or VTI?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. CZA is less concentrated, with 19.7% 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 | CZA | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $180M | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.38% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 103 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +5.93% | +11.95%Best |
| 1Y Return | +9.23% | +15.05%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.19% | +22.32%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.80% | +12.50%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.7% | 16.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -53.2%Best | -56.6% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,895 | $18,020Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 19.7%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 2, 2007 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 3, 2007 to Sep 30, 2026 (19.5 years).
CZA 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 19.5 years both funds cover.
CZA vs VTI Performance
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year CZA returned +9.23% while VTI returned +15.05%. Year to date, CZA is up 5.93% versus a gain of 11.95% for VTI.
Over three years, CZA compounded at +13.19% per year against +22.32% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +6.80% and +12.50% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +9.29% annualized vs +9.28%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CZA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.7% compared with 16.0% 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 -53.2% for CZA and -56.6% 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 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CZA charges 0.69% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $3 annually, a gap of $66 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CZA currently yields 1.38% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
87.5% of CZA's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 2.3% of VTI's money is in holdings CZA also owns.
Most of CZA is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
88 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in CZA and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 103 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,068 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for CZA (95.3% of the fund), and 7 for CZA that do not appear in VTI (5.3%).
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 CZA | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BDXBecton Dickinson And Co. | 2.45% | 0.06% | 2.39% |
| PRUPrudential Financial Inc | 2.04% | 0.06% | 1.98% |
| AAgilent Technologies Inc | 2.02% | 0.05% | 1.97% |
| AIGAmerican International Gr | 1.99% | 0.06% | 1.93% |
| IQVI Q V I A Holdings Inc. | 1.95% | 0.05% | 1.90% |
| WCN:CAWaste Connections Inc Common Stock Cad 0 | 1.93% | 0.06% | 1.87% |
| SYYSysco Corp | 1.87% | 0.06% | 1.81% |
| HIGHartford Financial Services Group Inc. | 1.84% | 0.05% | 1.79% |
| VGVenture Global Inc | 1.83% | 0.00% | 1.83% |
| PEGPublic Svc Ent Group | 1.75% | 0.05% | 1.70% |
87.5% of CZA 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, CZA or VTI?
CZA has an expense ratio of 0.69% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $66 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CZA or VTI?
Over the past year CZA returned +9.23% vs +15.05% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), CZA annualized +9.28% vs +9.29% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CZA or VTI?
CZA has been the more volatile fund at 16.7% annualized versus 16.0% for VTI. Worst drawdown: CZA -53.2% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both CZA and VTI?
CZA and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, 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 CZA and VTI?
87.5% of CZA's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 2.3% of VTI's is in holdings CZA also owns. They hold 88 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in CZA and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, CZA or VTI?
CZA yields 1.38% while VTI yields 1.03%, so CZA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than CZA?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. CZA is less concentrated, with 19.7% 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.