GFGF vs VOO
Guru Favorite Stocks ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, GFGF or VOO?
Nearly the same fund. VOO costs less.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. VOO is less concentrated, with 36.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 51.0%.
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 | GFGF | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.66% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $33M | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.21% | 1.08% |
| Holdings | 29 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +4.78% | +13.81%Best |
| 1Y Return | +11.60% | +21.53%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.90% | +21.46%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.87% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.1% | 15.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -28.0% | -24.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 4.7 years | $15,000 | $17,702Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 51.0% | 36.4%Best |
| Fund Family | GuruFocus Investments, LLC | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 15, 2021 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 16, 2021 to Sep 3, 2026 (4.7 years).
GFGF 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 covers the 4.7 years both funds cover.
GFGF vs VOO Performance
Guru Favorite Stocks ETF (GFGF) is an ETF from GuruFocus Investments, LLC and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year GFGF returned +11.60% while VOO returned +21.53%. Year to date, GFGF is up 4.78% versus a gain of 13.81% for VOO.
Over three years, GFGF compounded at +16.90% per year against +21.46% for VOO.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
GFGF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.1% compared with 15.7% for VOO. 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 -28.0% for GFGF and -24.5% for VOO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GFGF charges 0.66% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $66 vs $3 annually, a gap of $63 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GFGF currently yields 0.21% against 1.08% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
88.3% of GFGF's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 36.9% of VOO's money is in holdings GFGF also owns.
Most of GFGF is already inside VOO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 49 days apart, GFGF as of Aug 18, 2026 and VOO as of Jun 30, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
25 positions in common, counted across the 30 positions we hold weights for in GFGF and 505 in VOO, against full books of 29 and 509.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 472 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for GFGF (62.6% of the fund), and 2 for GFGF that do not appear in VOO (2.3%).
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 GFGF | Weight in VOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 9.16% | 4.30% | 4.86% |
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 4.75% | 7.51% | 2.76% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.43% | 6.59% | 2.16% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc.Class A | 5.29% | 3.25% | 2.04% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.72% | 3.62% | 0.10% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 4.54% | 1.47% | 3.07% |
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 4.14% | 1.42% | 2.72% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 4.32% | 0.87% | 3.45% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group, Inc. | 4.35% | 0.59% | 3.76% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.32% | 2.59% | 0.27% |
88.3% of GFGF 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.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GFGF or VOO?
GFGF has an expense ratio of 0.66% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $63 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GFGF or VOO?
Over the past year GFGF returned +11.60% vs +21.53% for VOO, so VOO leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GFGF or VOO?
GFGF has been the more volatile fund at 17.1% annualized versus 15.7% for VOO. Worst drawdown: GFGF -28.0% vs VOO -24.5%.
Should I hold both GFGF and VOO?
GFGF and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 GFGF and VOO?
88.3% of GFGF's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 36.9% of VOO's is in holdings GFGF also owns. They hold 25 positions in common, counted across the 30 positions we hold weights for in GFGF and 505 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, GFGF or VOO?
GFGF yields 0.21% while VOO yields 1.08%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than GFGF?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. VOO is less concentrated, with 36.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 51.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.