GMF vs VTI
State Street SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | GMF | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $424M | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.19% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 1,290 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +10.57% | +14.22% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.91% | +22.19% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.34% | +21.27% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.64% | +12.23% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.8% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -67.6% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 19, 2007 | May 24, 2001 |
GMF vs VTI Performance
State Street SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year GMF returned +21.91% while VTI returned +22.19%. Year to date, GMF is up 10.57% versus a gain of 14.22% for VTI.
Over three years, GMF compounded at +18.34% per year against +21.27% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +6.64% and +12.23% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.14% annualized vs +5.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
GMF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.8% 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 -67.6% for GMF and -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.70. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GMF charges 0.49% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $3 annually, a gap of $46 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GMF currently yields 1.19% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
GMF and VTI share 1 holdings out of 4021 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in GMF | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESE | 0.03% | 0.01% | 0.02% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GMF or VTI?
GMF has an expense ratio of 0.49% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $46 per year of difference.
Which performed better, GMF or VTI?
Over the past year GMF returned +21.91% vs +22.19% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), GMF annualized +5.49% vs +8.14% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, GMF or VTI?
GMF has been the more volatile fund at 20.8% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: GMF -67.6% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both GMF and VTI?
GMF and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.70, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between GMF and VTI?
GMF and VTI share 1 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 4021 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, GMF or VTI?
GMF yields 1.19% while VTI yields 1.07%, so GMF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.