IFRA vs VTI
iShares US Infrastructure ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, IFRA or VTI?
Mid Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IFRA led over 5Y, VTI over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. IFRA is less concentrated, with 33.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%.
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 | IFRA | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.30% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $4.2B | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.66% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 168 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +6.57% | +11.06%Best |
| 1Y Return | +11.28% | +15.41%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.95% | +20.48%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.11%Best | +11.52% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.8% | 17.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -41.1% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,710Best | $17,249 |
| Top 10 Weight | 33.0%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 3, 2018 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 5, 2018 to Sep 16, 2026 (8.4 years).
IFRA 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 8.4 years both funds cover.
IFRA vs VTI Performance
iShares US Infrastructure ETF (IFRA) 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 IFRA returned +11.28% while VTI returned +15.41%. Year to date, IFRA is up 6.57% versus a gain of 11.06% for VTI.
Over three years, IFRA compounded at +15.95% per year against +20.48% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +12.11% and +11.52% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +13.57% annualized vs +11.12%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IFRA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.8% compared with 17.0% 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 -41.1% for IFRA 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 0.86. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IFRA charges 0.30% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $30 vs $3 annually, a gap of $27 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IFRA currently yields 1.66% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
92.1% of IFRA's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 4.5% of VTI's money is in holdings IFRA also owns.
Most of IFRA is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
148 positions in common, counted across the 162 positions we hold weights for in IFRA and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 168 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 IFRA (93.0% of the fund), and 3 for IFRA that do not appear in VTI (0.2%).
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 IFRA | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNPUnion Pacific Corp | 4.48% | 0.24% | 4.24% |
| NEENextera Energy Inc | 4.05% | 0.25% | 3.80% |
| CATCaterpillar, Inc. | 3.62% | 0.52% | 3.10% |
| PWRQuanta Services Inc | 3.46% | 0.14% | 3.32% |
| CSXCsx Corp. | 3.44% | 0.13% | 3.31% |
| SOSouthern Co. | 2.91% | 0.15% | 2.76% |
| NSCNorfolk Southern Corp | 2.84% | 0.10% | 2.74% |
| CEGConstellation Energy Corporation Com | 2.78% | 0.12% | 2.66% |
| DUKDuke Energy Corp | 2.75% | 0.14% | 2.61% |
| WMBWilliams Cos. Inc. | 2.68% | 0.12% | 2.56% |
92.1% of IFRA 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, IFRA or VTI?
IFRA has an expense ratio of 0.30% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $27 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IFRA or VTI?
Over the past year IFRA returned +11.28% vs +15.41% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), IFRA annualized +11.12% vs +13.57% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IFRA or VTI?
IFRA has been the more volatile fund at 19.8% annualized versus 17.0% for VTI. Worst drawdown: IFRA -41.1% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both IFRA and VTI?
IFRA and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.86, 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 IFRA and VTI?
92.1% of IFRA's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 4.5% of VTI's is in holdings IFRA also owns. They hold 148 positions in common, counted across the 162 positions we hold weights for in IFRA and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, IFRA or VTI?
IFRA yields 1.66% while VTI yields 1.03%, so IFRA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than IFRA?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IFRA led over 5Y, VTI over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. IFRA is less concentrated, with 33.0% 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.