FLQL vs VTI
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, FLQL or VTI?
Nearly the same fund. VTI costs less.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, VTI over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.5%.
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 | FLQL | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $2.1B | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.02% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 220 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +12.73% | +13.10%Best |
| 1Y Return | +15.83% | +17.01%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.85%Best | +22.26% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.95%Best | +11.98% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0%Best | 16.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.6%Best | -35.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,212Best | $17,608 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.5% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 26, 2017 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 28, 2017 to Sep 24, 2026 (9.4 years).
FLQL 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 9.4 years both funds cover.
FLQL vs VTI Performance
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQL) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year FLQL returned +15.83% while VTI returned +17.01%. Year to date, FLQL is up 12.73% versus a gain of 13.10% for VTI.
Over three years, FLQL compounded at +22.85% per year against +22.26% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +13.95% and +11.98% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, FLQL has the edge at +14.51% annualized vs +13.64%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.2% compared with 15.0% for FLQL. 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 -33.6% for FLQL 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 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FLQL charges 0.15% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $3 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLQL currently yields 1.02% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
98.4% of FLQL's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 54.0% of VTI's money is in holdings FLQL also owns.
Most of FLQL is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
203 positions in common, counted across the 214 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 220 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 954 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for FLQL (43.5% of the fund), and 7 for FLQL that do not appear in VTI (0.8%).
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 FLQL | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.60% | 6.29% | 1.31% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.48% | 6.40% | 1.08% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.24% | 4.79% | 0.45% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.38% | 3.65% | 0.27% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.61% | 2.90% | 0.71% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.89% | 2.31% | 0.58% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.44% | 2.56% | 0.12% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.86% | 1.70% | 0.16% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 2.04% | 0.89% | 1.15% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 1.96% | 0.86% | 1.10% |
98.4% of FLQL 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, FLQL or VTI?
FLQL has an expense ratio of 0.15% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLQL or VTI?
Over the past year FLQL returned +15.83% vs +17.01% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), FLQL annualized +14.51% vs +13.64% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLQL or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 16.2% annualized versus 15.0% for FLQL. Worst drawdown: FLQL -33.6% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both FLQL and VTI?
FLQL and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 FLQL and VTI?
98.4% of FLQL's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 54.0% of VTI's is in holdings FLQL also owns. They hold 203 positions in common, counted across the 214 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLQL or VTI?
FLQL yields 1.02% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than FLQL?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, VTI over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.