MSLC vs VOO
Morgan Stanley Pathway Large Cap Equity ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, MSLC or VOO?
Nearly the same fund. VOO costs less.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. MSLC is less concentrated, with 34.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.4%.
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 | MSLC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.39% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $4.1B | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.92% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 789 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +10.58% | +12.50%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.07% | +17.58%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.27% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.95% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.2%Best | 12.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -17.9%Best | -18.7% |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $12,465 | $12,998Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 34.4%Best | 36.4% |
| Fund Family | Morgan Stanley | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 9, 2024 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 9, 2024 to Sep 11, 2026 (1.8 years).
MSLC 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 1.8 years both funds cover.
MSLC vs VOO Performance
Morgan Stanley Pathway Large Cap Equity ETF (MSLC) is an ETF from Morgan Stanley and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year MSLC returned +14.07% while VOO returned +17.58%. Year to date, MSLC is up 10.58% versus a gain of 12.50% for VOO.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VOO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.7% compared with 12.2% for MSLC. 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 -17.9% for MSLC and -18.7% 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 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MSLC charges 0.39% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $3 annually, a gap of $36 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MSLC currently yields 1.92% against 1.04% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
92.3% of MSLC's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 97.8% of VOO's money is in holdings MSLC also owns.
Most of VOO is already inside MSLC. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 52 days apart, MSLC as of Aug 21, 2026 and VOO as of Jun 30, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
451 positions in common, counted across the 785 positions we hold weights for in MSLC and 505 in VOO, against full books of 789 and 509.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 47 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for MSLC (1.8% of the fund), and 241 for MSLC that do not appear in VOO (4.7%).
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 MSLC | Weight in VOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 6.79% | 7.51% | 0.72% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.23% | 6.59% | 1.36% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.51% | 4.30% | 1.21% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.05% | 3.62% | 0.43% |
| GOOGLAlphabet A Usd 0.001 | 3.26% | 3.25% | 0.01% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.47% | 2.77% | 0.30% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 1.97% | 2.59% | 0.62% |
| METAMeta Platforms, Inc. | 1.94% | 1.92% | 0.02% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.56% | 2.02% | 0.46% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase & Co. | 1.58% | 1.26% | 0.32% |
97.8% of VOO is already inside MSLC.
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, MSLC or VOO?
MSLC has an expense ratio of 0.39% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $36 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, MSLC or VOO?
Over the past year MSLC returned +14.07% vs +17.58% for VOO, so VOO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), MSLC annualized +13.02% vs +15.68% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, MSLC or VOO?
VOO has been the more volatile fund at 12.7% annualized versus 12.2% for MSLC. Worst drawdown: MSLC -17.9% vs VOO -18.7%.
Should I hold both MSLC and VOO?
MSLC and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, 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 MSLC and VOO?
97.8% of VOO's money is in holdings MSLC also owns. 97.8% of VOO's is in holdings MSLC also owns. They hold 451 positions in common, counted across the 785 positions we hold weights for in MSLC and 505 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, MSLC or VOO?
MSLC yields 1.92% while VOO yields 1.04%, so MSLC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than MSLC?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. MSLC is less concentrated, with 34.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.