IMCB vs VTI
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. IMCB delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | IMCB | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.04% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $1.7B | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.22% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 399 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +20.43% | +13.87% | |
| 1Y Return | +26.89% | +23.31% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.15% | +21.17% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.46% | +12.23% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.2% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -59.6% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 28, 2004 | May 24, 2001 |
IMCB vs VTI Performance
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IMCB returned +26.89% while VTI returned +23.31%. Year to date, IMCB is up 20.43% versus a gain of 13.87% for VTI.
Over three years, IMCB compounded at +18.15% per year against +21.17% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +9.46% and +12.23% respectively. Across the full 22-year window we track, IMCB has the edge at +9.38% annualized vs +8.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IMCB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% 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 -59.6% for IMCB 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 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IMCB charges 0.04% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $4 vs $3 annually, a gap of $1 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IMCB currently yields 1.22% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
IMCB and VTI share 357 holdings out of 2822 unique holdings combined, representing a 18.9% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, IMCB or VTI?
IMCB has an expense ratio of 0.04% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $1 per year of difference.
Which performed better, IMCB or VTI?
Over the past year IMCB returned +26.89% vs +23.31% for VTI, so IMCB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (22 years), IMCB annualized +9.38% vs +8.13% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, IMCB or VTI?
IMCB has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: IMCB -59.6% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both IMCB and VTI?
IMCB and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between IMCB and VTI?
IMCB and VTI share 357 common holdings with a 18.9% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2822 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, IMCB or VTI?
IMCB yields 1.22% while VTI yields 1.07%, so IMCB 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.