IETC vs VTI
iShares US Tech Independence Focused ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, IETC or VTI?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IETC led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, VTI over 1Y. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.4%.
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 | IETC | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $686M | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.38% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 106 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +6.58% | +11.06%Best |
| 1Y Return | +5.14% | +15.41%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.22%Best | +20.48% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.45%Best | +11.52% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.5% | 16.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -38.5% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,794Best | $17,249 |
| Top 10 Weight | 49.4% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Mar 21, 2018 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 23, 2018 to Sep 16, 2026 (8.5 years).
IETC 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 8.5 years both funds cover.
IETC vs VTI Performance
iShares US Tech Independence Focused ETF (IETC) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IETC returned +5.14% while VTI returned +15.41%. Year to date, IETC is up 6.58% versus a gain of 11.06% for VTI.
Over three years, IETC compounded at +25.22% per year against +20.48% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +13.45% and +11.52% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, IETC has the edge at +19.70% annualized vs +13.87%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IETC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.5% compared with 16.9% 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 -38.5% for IETC and -35.0% 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 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IETC charges 0.18% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $3 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IETC currently yields 0.38% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
98.7% of IETC's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 44.2% of VTI's money is in holdings IETC also owns.
Most of IETC is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
105 positions in common, counted across the 109 positions we hold weights for in IETC and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 106 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,055 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for IETC (53.3% of the fund), and 3 for IETC that do not appear in VTI (1.1%).
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 IETC | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 13.74% | 6.40% | 7.34% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 8.06% | 2.56% | 5.50% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 3.69% | 6.29% | 2.60% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 1.94% | 4.79% | 2.85% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 5.34% | 1.29% | 4.05% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.87% | 3.65% | 0.78% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 4.84% | 1.08% | 3.76% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 2.94% | 2.90% | 0.04% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.43% | 2.31% | 0.12% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.03% | 1.70% | 0.33% |
98.7% of IETC 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, IETC or VTI?
IETC has an expense ratio of 0.18% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $15 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IETC or VTI?
Over the past year IETC returned +5.14% vs +15.41% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), IETC annualized +19.70% vs +13.87% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IETC or VTI?
IETC has been the more volatile fund at 21.5% annualized versus 16.9% for VTI. Worst drawdown: IETC -38.5% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both IETC and VTI?
IETC and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, 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 IETC and VTI?
98.7% of IETC's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 44.2% of VTI's is in holdings IETC also owns. They hold 105 positions in common, counted across the 109 positions we hold weights for in IETC and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IETC or VTI?
IETC yields 0.38% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than IETC?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IETC led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, VTI over 1Y. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.