FAD vs VOO
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FAD or VOO?
Mid Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. FAD is less concentrated, with 4.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.4%.
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 | FAD | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.63% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $584M | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.10% | 1.08% |
| Holdings | 677 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +12.67% | +13.37%Best |
| 1Y Return | +18.84% | +20.08%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.98% | +21.29%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.64% | +12.89%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.1% | 14.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -37.3% | -34.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,134 | $18,335Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 4.8%Best | 36.4% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 8, 2007 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 9, 2010 to Sep 4, 2026 (16 years).
FAD vs VOO 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 16 years both funds cover.
FAD vs VOO Performance
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year FAD returned +18.84% while VOO returned +20.08%. Year to date, FAD is up 12.67% versus a gain of 13.37% for VOO.
Over three years, FAD compounded at +20.98% per year against +21.29% for VOO; over five years the annualized figures are +8.64% and +12.89% respectively. Across the full 16-year window we track, VOO has the edge at +13.48% annualized vs +13.37%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FAD has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.1% compared with 14.1% for VOO. 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 -37.3% for FAD and -34.3% for VOO. 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
FAD charges 0.63% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $63 vs $3 annually, a gap of $60 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FAD currently yields 0.10% against 1.08% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
37.5% of FAD's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 57.9% of VOO's money is in holdings FAD also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
153 positions in common, counted across the 668 positions we hold weights for in FAD and 505 in VOO, against full books of 677 and 509.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 344 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for FAD (41.6% of the fund), and 503 for FAD that do not appear in VOO (59.7%).
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 FAD | Weight in VOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 0.30% | 7.51% | 7.21% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 0.29% | 6.59% | 6.30% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 0.31% | 3.62% | 3.31% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc.Class A | 0.38% | 3.25% | 2.87% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.30% | 2.77% | 2.47% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 0.36% | 2.02% | 1.66% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 0.09% | 1.92% | 1.83% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 0.39% | 1.47% | 1.08% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 0.36% | 1.47% | 1.11% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 0.20% | 1.26% | 1.06% |
57.9% of VOO is already inside FAD.
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, FAD or VOO?
FAD has an expense ratio of 0.63% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $60 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FAD or VOO?
Over the past year FAD returned +18.84% vs +20.08% for VOO, so VOO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (16 years), FAD annualized +13.37% vs +13.48% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FAD or VOO?
FAD has been the more volatile fund at 17.1% annualized versus 14.1% for VOO. Worst drawdown: FAD -37.3% vs VOO -34.3%.
Should I hold both FAD and VOO?
FAD and VOO 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 FAD and VOO?
57.9% of VOO's money is in holdings FAD also owns. 57.9% of VOO's is in holdings FAD also owns. They hold 153 positions in common, counted across the 668 positions we hold weights for in FAD and 505 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, FAD or VOO?
FAD yields 0.10% while VOO yields 1.08%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than FAD?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. FAD is less concentrated, with 4.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.