GGRW vs VTI
Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, GGRW or VTI?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
GGRW has a lower expense ratio. GGRW led over 3Y, VTI over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.2%.
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 | GGRW | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.00%Best | 0.03% |
| AUM | $8M | $690.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.40% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 84 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +8.77% | +14.54%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.95% | +16.83%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +26.41%Best | +22.56% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.31% | +12.76%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.3% | 15.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -50.3% | -25.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,905 | $18,230Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 49.2% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | Gabelli Funds | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 16, 2021 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 16, 2021 to Oct 9, 2026 (5.6 years).
GGRW 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 5.6 years both funds cover.
GGRW vs VTI Performance
Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) is an ETF from Gabelli Funds and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year GGRW returned +7.95% while VTI returned +16.83%. Year to date, GGRW is up 8.77% versus a gain of 14.54% for VTI.
Over three years, GGRW compounded at +26.41% per year against +22.56% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +8.31% and +12.76% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +13.03% annualized vs +7.86%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
GGRW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.3% compared with 15.3% for VTI. 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 -50.3% for GGRW and -25.4% 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 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GGRW charges 0.00% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $0 vs $3 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GGRW currently yields 0.40% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
95.3% of GGRW's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 39.9% of VTI's money is in holdings GGRW also owns.
Most of GGRW is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 47 days apart, GGRW as of Sep 16, 2026 and VTI as of Jul 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
38 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in GGRW and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 84 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,112 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for GGRW (57.5% of the fund), and 2 for GGRW that do not appear in VTI (2.0%).
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
| Stock | Weight in GGRW | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 9.48% | 6.40% | 3.08% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 3.87% | 6.29% | 2.42% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 5.91% | 3.65% | 2.26% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.43% | 4.79% | 0.36% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 6.25% | 2.31% | 3.94% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.79% | 2.56% | 1.23% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 4.11% | 1.70% | 2.41% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 4.20% | 1.35% | 2.85% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 3.56% | 0.63% | 2.93% |
| GEVGE Vernova Inc. CDR (CAD Hedged) | 3.61% | 0.37% | 3.24% |
95.3% of GGRW 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, GGRW or VTI?
GGRW has an expense ratio of 0.00% while VTI charges 0.03%. GGRW is the cheaper option, by $3 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GGRW or VTI?
Over the past year GGRW returned +7.95% vs +16.83% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), GGRW annualized +7.86% vs +13.03% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GGRW or VTI?
GGRW has been the more volatile fund at 21.3% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: GGRW -50.3% vs VTI -25.4%.
Should I hold both GGRW and VTI?
GGRW and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, 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 GGRW and VTI?
95.3% of GGRW's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 39.9% of VTI's is in holdings GGRW also owns. They hold 38 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in GGRW and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, GGRW or VTI?
GGRW yields 0.40% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than GGRW?
GGRW has a lower expense ratio. GGRW led over 3Y, VTI over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.