FPWR vs VTI
First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FPWR | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.96% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $30M | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.82% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 60 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +12.49% | +14.96% | |
| 1Y Return | +14.66% | +22.39% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.05% | +21.51% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.34% | +12.36% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.5% | 15.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -32.3% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 20, 2019 | May 24, 2001 |
FPWR vs VTI Performance
First Trust EIP Power Solutions ETF (FPWR) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year FPWR returned +14.66% while VTI returned +22.39%. Year to date, FPWR is up 12.49% versus a gain of 14.96% for VTI.
Over three years, FPWR compounded at +18.05% per year against +21.51% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +11.34% and +12.36% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, FPWR has the edge at +11.08% annualized vs +8.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 14.5% for FPWR. 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 -32.3% for FPWR 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 0.64. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FPWR charges 0.96% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $96 vs $3 annually, a gap of $93 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FPWR currently yields 1.82% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
FPWR and VTI share 40 holdings out of 2800 unique holdings combined, representing a 2.5% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FPWR or VTI?
FPWR has an expense ratio of 0.96% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $93 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FPWR or VTI?
Over the past year FPWR returned +14.66% vs +22.39% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), FPWR annualized +11.08% vs +8.16% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FPWR or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 14.5% for FPWR. Worst drawdown: FPWR -32.3% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both FPWR and VTI?
FPWR and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.64, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between FPWR and VTI?
FPWR and VTI share 40 common holdings with a 2.5% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2800 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FPWR or VTI?
FPWR yields 1.82% while VTI yields 1.07%, so FPWR 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.