FSGS vs VYM
First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, FSGS or VYM?
Small Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. VYM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FSGS is less concentrated, with 11.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 25.9%.
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 | FSGS | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $32M | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.03% | 2.24% |
| Holdings | 202 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +9.99% | +14.82%Best |
| 1Y Return | +6.24% | +20.84%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +9.36% | +18.64%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.82% | +12.28%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.7% | 14.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -45.0% | -35.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $12,654 | $17,845Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 11.7%Best | 25.9% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Jun 20, 2017 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 22, 2017 to Sep 4, 2026 (9.2 years).
FSGS vs VYM 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 9.2 years both funds cover.
FSGS vs VYM Performance
First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year FSGS returned +6.24% while VYM returned +20.84%. Year to date, FSGS is up 9.99% versus a gain of 14.82% for VYM.
Over three years, FSGS compounded at +9.36% per year against +18.64% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +4.82% and +12.28% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, VYM has the edge at +10.17% annualized vs +6.93%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FSGS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.7% compared with 14.7% for VYM. 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 -45.0% for FSGS and -35.7% for VYM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FSGS charges 0.60% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $60 vs $4 annually, a gap of $56 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FSGS currently yields 0.03% against 2.24% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
13.8% of FSGS's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 0.8% of VYM's money is in holdings FSGS also owns.
FSGS and VYM share little of their money.
14 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in FSGS and 603 in VYM, against full books of 202 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 556 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for FSGS (96.7% of the fund), and 84 for FSGS that do not appear in VYM (84.1%).
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 FSGS | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| TPRTapestry Inc. | 1.08% | 0.12% | 0.96% |
| HLNEHamilton Lane Inc | 1.13% | 0.01% | 1.12% |
| BRBroadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. | 1.05% | 0.07% | 0.98% |
| NTRSNorthern Trust Corp. | 0.96% | 0.13% | 0.83% |
| TXRHTexas Roadhouse Inc | 1.02% | 0.05% | 0.97% |
| CINFCincinnati Financial Corp. | 0.95% | 0.12% | 0.83% |
| RLRalph Lauren Corp. Class A | 0.96% | 0.06% | 0.90% |
| MCMoelis & Co_None_0 | 0.99% | 0.02% | 0.97% |
| UMBFUmb Financial Corp. | 0.97% | 0.04% | 0.93% |
| MCYMercury General Corp | 0.99% | 0.01% | 0.98% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of FSGS and VYM you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FSGS or VYM?
FSGS has an expense ratio of 0.60% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $56 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FSGS or VYM?
Over the past year FSGS returned +6.24% vs +20.84% for VYM, so VYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), FSGS annualized +6.93% vs +10.17% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FSGS or VYM?
FSGS has been the more volatile fund at 20.7% annualized versus 14.7% for VYM. Worst drawdown: FSGS -45.0% vs VYM -35.7%.
Should I hold both FSGS and VYM?
FSGS and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FSGS and VYM?
13.8% of FSGS's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 0.8% of VYM's is in holdings FSGS also owns. They hold 14 positions in common, counted across the 100 positions we hold weights for in FSGS and 603 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, FSGS or VYM?
FSGS yields 0.03% while VYM yields 2.24%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than FSGS?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. VYM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. FSGS is less concentrated, with 11.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 25.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.