GANZ vs VOO

GANZ vs VOO

Which is better, GANZ or VOO?

VOO costs less.

VOO has a lower expense ratio. GANZ is less concentrated, with 38.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.1%.

Lower Fees: VOOLess Concentrated: GANZ

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

MetricGANZVOO
Expense Ratio0.75%0.03%Best
AUM$893,485.68$1.0T
Dividend Yield0.00%1.05%
Holdings30519
YTD Return-9.90%+8.52%Best
1Y Return-+10.96%
3Y Return (annualized)-+20.51%
5Y Return (annualized)-+10.97%
Top 10 Weight38.4%Best39.1%
Fund FamilyTuttle FundsVanguard (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionOct 15, 2026Sep 7, 2010

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

GANZ 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

GANZ vs VOO Performance

Tuttle Capital Thematic ETF (GANZ) is an ETF from Tuttle Funds and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Year to date, GANZ is down 9.90% versus a gain of 8.52% for VOO.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

GANZ charges 0.75% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $3 annually, a gap of $72 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GANZ currently yields 0.00% against 1.05% for VOO.

Holdings Overlap

GANZ already in VOO72.0%
VOO already in GANZ22.6%

72.0% of GANZ's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 22.6% of VOO's money is in holdings GANZ also owns.

Most of GANZ is already inside VOO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.

21 positions in common, counted across the 30 positions we hold weights for in GANZ and 506 in VOO, against full books of 30 and 519.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 480 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for GANZ (77.3% of the fund), and 8 for GANZ that do not appear in VOO (24.0%).

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

StockWeight in GANZWeight in VOODifference
NVDANvidia Corp3.22%8.39%5.17%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp3.28%5.78%2.50%
AVGOBroadcom Inc3.31%2.54%0.77%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.3.36%1.83%1.53%
LRCXLam Research Corporation4.37%0.62%3.75%
UBERUber Technologies Inc4.08%0.21%3.87%
CRMSalesforce Inc Crm Us Equity3.90%0.29%3.61%
ADBEAdobe Systems4.04%0.14%3.90%
DPZDomino's Pizza Inc4.14%0.02%4.12%
LLYEli Lilly & Co2.61%1.41%1.20%

72.0% of GANZ is already inside VOO.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

GANZVOO

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GANZ or VOO?

GANZ has an expense ratio of 0.75% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $72 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between GANZ and VOO?

72.0% of GANZ's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 22.6% of VOO's is in holdings GANZ also owns. They hold 21 positions in common, counted across the 30 positions we hold weights for in GANZ and 506 in VOO.

Which pays a higher dividend, GANZ or VOO?

GANZ yields 0.00% while VOO yields 1.05%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VOO better than GANZ?

VOO has a lower expense ratio. GANZ is less concentrated, with 38.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.