GEQ vs VTI

GEQ vs VTI

Which is better, GEQ or VTI?

VTI costs less.

VTI has a lower expense ratio. GEQ is less concentrated, with 17.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%.

Lower Fees: VTILess Concentrated: GEQ

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

MetricGEQVTI
Expense Ratio0.27%0.03%Best
AUM$209M$666.9B
Dividend Yield0.00%1.03%
Holdings6443,543
YTD Return+1.38%+11.06%Best
1Y Return-+15.41%
3Y Return (annualized)-+20.48%
5Y Return (annualized)-+11.52%
Top 10 Weight17.5%Best33.3%
Fund FamilyCambria Investment ManagementVanguard (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionJun 9, 2026May 24, 2001

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

GEQ 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 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.

GEQ vs VTI Performance

Cambria Global EW 2 ETF (GEQ) is an ETF from Cambria Investment Management and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Year to date, GEQ is up 1.38% versus a gain of 11.06% for VTI.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

GEQ charges 0.27% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $27 vs $3 annually, a gap of $24 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GEQ currently yields 0.00% against 1.03% for VTI.

Holdings Overlap

GEQ already in VTI49.4%
VTI already in GEQ81.3%

49.4% of GEQ's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 81.3% of VTI's money is in holdings GEQ also owns.

Most of VTI is already inside GEQ. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.

326 positions in common, counted across the 644 positions we hold weights for in GEQ and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 644 and 3,543.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 833 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for GEQ (16.4% of the fund), and 130 for GEQ that do not appear in VTI (29.4%).

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 GEQWeight in VTIDifference
AAPLApple, Inc1.95%6.29%4.34%
NVDANvidia Corp1.44%6.40%4.96%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp1.88%4.79%2.91%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc1.15%3.65%2.50%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A0.79%2.90%2.11%
AVGOBroadcom Inc0.88%2.56%1.68%
GOOGAlphabet Inc1.10%2.31%1.21%
JPMJpmorgan Chase0.88%1.31%0.43%
METAMeta Platforms Inc0.32%1.70%1.38%
LLYEli Lilly & Co.0.60%1.35%0.75%

81.3% of VTI is already inside GEQ.

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

GEQVTI

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, GEQ or VTI?

GEQ has an expense ratio of 0.27% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $24 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between GEQ and VTI?

81.3% of VTI's money is in holdings GEQ also owns. 81.3% of VTI's is in holdings GEQ also owns. They hold 326 positions in common, counted across the 644 positions we hold weights for in GEQ and 3,463 in VTI.

Which pays a higher dividend, GEQ or VTI?

GEQ yields 0.00% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VTI better than GEQ?

VTI has a lower expense ratio. GEQ is less concentrated, with 17.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.