MFM vs VTI
MFS Municipal Income Trust vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | MFM | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.45% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $250M | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 5.50% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 840 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +5.47% | +14.82% | |
| 1Y Return | +12.92% | +22.43% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +7.08% | +21.93% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -1.06% | +12.34% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.1% | 15.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -64.8% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | MFS Investment Management | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Tax Preferred | Equity | |
| Inception | Nov 25, 1986 | May 24, 2001 |
MFM vs VTI Performance
MFS Municipal Income Trust (MFM) is a ETF from MFS Investment Management and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year MFM returned +12.92% while VTI returned +22.43%. Year to date, MFM is up 5.47% versus a gain of 14.82% for VTI.
Over three years, MFM compounded at +7.08% per year against +21.93% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are -1.06% and +12.34% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.16% annualized vs -1.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 14.1% for MFM. 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 -64.8% for MFM 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 0.29. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MFM charges 1.45% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $145 vs $3 annually, a gap of $142 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MFM currently yields 5.50% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
MFM and VTI share 0 holdings out of 3050 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, MFM or VTI?
MFM has an expense ratio of 1.45% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $142 per year of difference.
Which performed better, MFM or VTI?
Over the past year MFM returned +12.92% vs +22.43% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), MFM annualized -1.01% vs +8.16% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, MFM or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 14.1% for MFM. Worst drawdown: MFM -64.8% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both MFM and VTI?
MFM and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.29, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between MFM and VTI?
MFM and VTI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 3050 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, MFM or VTI?
MFM yields 5.50% while VTI yields 1.07%, so MFM 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.