GDIV vs VTI
Harbor Dividend Growth Leaders ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, GDIV or VTI?
VTI has been ahead.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.4%.
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 | GDIV | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $240M | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.12% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 52 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +10.38% | +12.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.03% | +16.08%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.31% | +21.01%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.36% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.2%Best | 15.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -18.9%Best | -19.3% |
| $10,000 over 4.3 years | $16,062 | $19,999Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 33.4% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | Harbor Funds | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 29, 2010 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: May 23, 2022 to Sep 18, 2026 (4.3 years).
GDIV 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 4.3 years both funds cover.
GDIV vs VTI Performance
Harbor Dividend Growth Leaders ETF (GDIV) is an ETF from Harbor Funds and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year GDIV returned +16.03% while VTI returned +16.08%. Year to date, GDIV is up 10.38% versus a gain of 12.30% for VTI.
Over three years, GDIV compounded at +15.31% per year against +21.01% for VTI. Across the full 4-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +17.49% annualized vs +11.65%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.5% compared with 14.2% for GDIV. 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 -18.9% for GDIV and -19.3% 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 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GDIV charges 0.50% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $3 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GDIV currently yields 1.12% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
88.4% of GDIV's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 22.9% of VTI's money is in holdings GDIV also owns.
Most of GDIV is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
49 positions in common, counted across the 53 positions we hold weights for in GDIV and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 52 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,102 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for GDIV (74.5% of the fund), and 3 for GDIV that do not appear in VTI (6.2%).
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 GDIV | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.40% | 6.29% | 0.89% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.00% | 4.79% | 1.79% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 4.10% | 1.35% | 2.75% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.50% | 2.56% | 0.06% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 3.10% | 0.86% | 2.24% |
| MLIMueller Industries Inc | 3.60% | 0.02% | 3.58% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 2.70% | 0.55% | 2.15% |
| WMBWilliams Cos. Inc. | 3.10% | 0.12% | 2.98% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 2.70% | 0.42% | 2.28% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 2.40% | 0.22% | 2.18% |
88.4% of GDIV 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, GDIV or VTI?
GDIV has an expense ratio of 0.50% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GDIV or VTI?
Over the past year GDIV returned +16.03% vs +16.08% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), GDIV annualized +11.65% vs +17.49% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GDIV or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.5% annualized versus 14.2% for GDIV. Worst drawdown: GDIV -18.9% vs VTI -19.3%.
Should I hold both GDIV and VTI?
GDIV and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 GDIV and VTI?
88.4% of GDIV's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 22.9% of VTI's is in holdings GDIV also owns. They hold 49 positions in common, counted across the 53 positions we hold weights for in GDIV and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, GDIV or VTI?
GDIV yields 1.12% while VTI yields 1.03%, so GDIV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than GDIV?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.