MUC vs VTI
BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund, Inc vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | MUC | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.82% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $1.4B | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 5.40% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 213 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +4.40% | +14.22% | |
| 1Y Return | +11.10% | +22.19% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +6.37% | +21.27% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -2.95% | +12.23% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.8% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.6% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | BlackRock, Inc. (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Tax Preferred | Equity | |
| Inception | Feb 27, 1998 | May 24, 2001 |
MUC vs VTI Performance
BlackRock MuniHoldings California Quality Fund, Inc (MUC) is a ETF from BlackRock, Inc. (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year MUC returned +11.10% while VTI returned +22.19%. Year to date, MUC is up 4.40% versus a gain of 14.22% for VTI.
Over three years, MUC compounded at +6.37% per year against +21.27% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are -2.95% and +12.23% respectively. Across the full 25-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.14% annualized vs -0.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 12.8% for MUC. 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 -56.6% for MUC 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 0.25. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MUC charges 2.82% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $282 vs $3 annually, a gap of $279 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MUC currently yields 5.40% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
MUC and VTI share 0 holdings out of 2867 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, MUC or VTI?
MUC has an expense ratio of 2.82% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $279 per year of difference.
Which performed better, MUC or VTI?
Over the past year MUC returned +11.10% vs +22.19% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (25 years), MUC annualized -0.18% vs +8.14% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, MUC or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 12.8% for MUC. Worst drawdown: MUC -56.6% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both MUC and VTI?
MUC and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.25, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between MUC and VTI?
MUC and VTI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2867 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, MUC or VTI?
MUC yields 5.40% while VTI yields 1.07%, so MUC 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.