EMF vs VTI
Templeton Emerging Markets Fund vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. EMF delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EMF | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.50% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $6,444.06 | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.49% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 100 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +31.68% | +14.96% | |
| 1Y Return | +56.67% | +22.39% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +33.15% | +21.51% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.81% | +12.36% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 29.3% | 15.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -73.7% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Feb 27, 1987 | May 24, 2001 |
EMF vs VTI Performance
Templeton Emerging Markets Fund (EMF) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year EMF returned +56.67% while VTI returned +22.39%. Year to date, EMF is up 31.68% versus a gain of 14.96% for VTI.
Over three years, EMF compounded at +33.15% per year against +21.51% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +12.81% and +12.36% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.16% annualized vs +1.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EMF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 29.3% compared with 15.4% 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 -73.7% for EMF 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 0.69. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EMF charges 1.50% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $150 vs $3 annually, a gap of $147 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EMF currently yields 6.49% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
EMF and VTI share 1 holdings out of 2867 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in EMF | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CTSH | 0.88% | 0.03% | 0.85% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EMF or VTI?
EMF has an expense ratio of 1.50% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $147 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EMF or VTI?
Over the past year EMF returned +56.67% vs +22.39% for VTI, so EMF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), EMF annualized +1.83% vs +8.16% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EMF or VTI?
EMF has been the more volatile fund at 29.3% annualized versus 15.4% for VTI. Worst drawdown: EMF -73.7% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both EMF and VTI?
EMF and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.69, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EMF and VTI?
EMF and VTI share 1 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2867 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EMF or VTI?
EMF yields 6.49% while VTI yields 1.07%, so EMF 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.