FOWF vs VTI
Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. FOWF delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FOWF | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $16M | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.76% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 94 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +18.03% | +14.96% | |
| 1Y Return | +24.59% | +22.39% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.51% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.36% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.7% | 15.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -12.3% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Dec 17, 2024 | May 24, 2001 |
FOWF vs VTI Performance
Pacer Solactive Whitney Future of Warfare ETF (FOWF) is a ETF from Pacer ETFs and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year FOWF returned +24.59% while VTI returned +22.39%. Year to date, FOWF is up 18.03% versus a gain of 14.96% for VTI.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 12.7% for FOWF. 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 -12.3% for FOWF 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 0.55. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FOWF charges 0.49% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $3 annually, a gap of $46 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FOWF currently yields 0.76% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
FOWF and VTI share 62 holdings out of 2814 unique holdings combined, representing a 10.7% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FOWF or VTI?
FOWF has an expense ratio of 0.49% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $46 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FOWF or VTI?
Over the past year FOWF returned +24.59% vs +22.39% for VTI, so FOWF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), FOWF annualized +30.36% vs +8.16% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FOWF or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 12.7% for FOWF. Worst drawdown: FOWF -12.3% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both FOWF and VTI?
FOWF and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.55, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between FOWF and VTI?
FOWF and VTI share 62 common holdings with a 10.7% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2814 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FOWF or VTI?
FOWF yields 0.76% while VTI yields 1.07%, so VTI 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.