LUMA vs VTI

LUMA vs VTI

Which is better, LUMA or VTI?

Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.

VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.5%.

Lower Fees: VTILess Concentrated: VTI

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

MetricLUMAVTI
Expense Ratio1.00%0.03%Best
AUM$2M$666.9B
Dividend Yield0.00%1.03%
Holdings283,543
YTD Return+5.63%+13.60%Best
1Y Return-+18.17%
3Y Return (annualized)-+23.04%
5Y Return (annualized)-+12.14%
Top 10 Weight56.5%33.3%Best
Fund FamilyKraneSharesVanguard (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap GrowthLarge Cap Blend
InceptionJul 15, 2026May 24, 2001

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

LUMA 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

LUMA vs VTI Performance

KraneShares Photonic and Optical ETF (LUMA) is an ETF from KraneShares and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Year to date, LUMA is up 5.63% versus a gain of 13.60% for VTI.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

LUMA charges 1.00% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $3 annually, a gap of $97 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LUMA currently yields 0.00% against 1.03% for VTI.

Holdings Overlap

LUMA already in VTI42.8%
VTI already in LUMA0.7%

42.8% of LUMA's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.7% of VTI's money is in holdings LUMA also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

12 positions in common, counted across the 26 positions we hold weights for in LUMA and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 28 and 3,543.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 1,139 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for LUMA (96.8% of the fund), and 1 for LUMA that do not appear in VTI (3.0%).

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

StockWeight in LUMAWeight in VTIDifference
LITELumentum Holdings Inc6.71%0.08%6.63%
COHRCoherent Corp5.60%0.07%5.53%
MRVLMarvell Technology Group Ltd.4.99%0.23%4.76%
AXTIAxt Inc Com5.21%0.01%5.20%
MTSIMacom Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.5.05%0.02%5.03%
FORMFormfactor, Inc.3.02%0.01%3.01%
CIENCiena Corp2.73%0.07%2.66%
FNFabrinet2.65%0.02%2.63%
GLWCorning Inc.2.51%0.15%2.36%
SMTCSemtech Corp2.15%0.02%2.13%

42.8% of LUMA 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.

LUMAVTI

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, LUMA or VTI?

LUMA has an expense ratio of 1.00% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $97 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between LUMA and VTI?

42.8% of LUMA's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.7% of VTI's is in holdings LUMA also owns. They hold 12 positions in common, counted across the 26 positions we hold weights for in LUMA and 3,463 in VTI.

Which pays a higher dividend, LUMA or VTI?

LUMA yields 0.00% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VTI better than LUMA?

VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.