LSAF vs VOO
LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, LSAF or VOO?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. LSAF led over 1Y, VOO over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. LSAF is less concentrated, with 13.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.6%.
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 | LSAF | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $125M | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.55% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 103 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +20.61%Best | +12.25% |
| 1Y Return | +25.45%Best | +17.03% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.13% | +21.25%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.28% | +13.08%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.2% | 16.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -41.7% | -34.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,064 | $18,490Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 13.2%Best | 37.6% |
| Fund Family | LeaderShares | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 1, 2018 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 2, 2018 to Sep 17, 2026 (8 years).
LSAF vs VOO 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 years both funds cover.
LSAF vs VOO Performance
LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) is an ETF from LeaderShares and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year LSAF returned +25.45% while VOO returned +17.03%. Year to date, LSAF is up 20.61% versus a gain of 12.25% for VOO.
Over three years, LSAF compounded at +20.13% per year against +21.25% for VOO; over five years the annualized figures are +11.28% and +13.08% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, VOO has the edge at +13.95% annualized vs +11.05%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LSAF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.2% compared with 16.7% for VOO. 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 -41.7% for LSAF and -34.3% for VOO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LSAF charges 0.75% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $3 annually, a gap of $72 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LSAF currently yields 0.55% against 1.04% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
50.2% of LSAF's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 5.1% of VOO's money is in holdings LSAF also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
50 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in LSAF and 494 in VOO, against full books of 103 and 509.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 437 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for LSAF (94.1% of the fund), and 48 for LSAF that do not appear in VOO (45.7%).
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 LSAF | Weight in VOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| VVisa Inc Class A | 1.01% | 0.93% | 0.08% |
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 1.37% | 0.14% | 1.23% |
| VLOValero Energy | 1.27% | 0.14% | 1.13% |
| SCHWSchwab Strategic T | 1.07% | 0.27% | 0.80% |
| IQVI Q V I A Holdings Inc. | 1.25% | 0.06% | 1.19% |
| MCKMckesson Corp. | 1.14% | 0.16% | 0.98% |
| DISWalt Disney Co | 1.02% | 0.26% | 0.76% |
| ZBRAZebra Technologies Corp | 1.24% | 0.02% | 1.22% |
| ABNBAirbnb Inc | 1.15% | 0.10% | 1.05% |
| DELLDell Technologies Inc | 1.07% | 0.18% | 0.89% |
50.2% of LSAF is already inside VOO.
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, LSAF or VOO?
LSAF has an expense ratio of 0.75% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $72 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LSAF or VOO?
Over the past year LSAF returned +25.45% vs +17.03% for VOO, so LSAF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), LSAF annualized +11.05% vs +13.95% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LSAF or VOO?
LSAF has been the more volatile fund at 19.2% annualized versus 16.7% for VOO. Worst drawdown: LSAF -41.7% vs VOO -34.3%.
Should I hold both LSAF and VOO?
LSAF and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between LSAF and VOO?
50.2% of LSAF's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 5.1% of VOO's is in holdings LSAF also owns. They hold 50 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in LSAF and 494 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, LSAF or VOO?
LSAF yields 0.55% while VOO yields 1.04%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than LSAF?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. LSAF led over 1Y, VOO over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. LSAF is less concentrated, with 13.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.