NANC vs VOO
Subversive Congressional Democrats Trading ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, NANC or VOO?
Nearly the same fund. VOO costs less.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. NANC led over 3Y and the full window, VOO over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%.
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 | NANC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.72% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $285M | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.18% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 106 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +13.07%Best | +12.25% |
| 1Y Return | +16.70% | +17.03%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.05%Best | +21.25% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.08% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.6% | 12.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -20.9% | -18.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.6 years | $20,213Best | $19,237 |
| Top 10 Weight | 46.5% | 37.6%Best |
| Fund Family | Subversive Capital | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 7, 2023 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.6 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 7, 2023 to Sep 17, 2026 (3.6 years).
NANC 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 3.6 years both funds cover.
NANC vs VOO Performance
Subversive Congressional Democrats Trading ETF (NANC) is an ETF from Subversive Capital and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year NANC returned +16.70% while VOO returned +17.03%. Year to date, NANC is up 13.07% versus a gain of 12.25% for VOO.
Over three years, NANC compounded at +23.05% per year against +21.25% for VOO. Across the full 4-year window we track, NANC has the edge at +21.59% annualized vs +19.93%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NANC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.6% compared with 12.4% 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 -20.9% for NANC 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 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NANC charges 0.72% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $72 vs $3 annually, a gap of $69 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NANC currently yields 0.18% against 1.04% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
88.1% of NANC's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 56.6% of VOO's money is in holdings NANC also owns.
Most of NANC is already inside VOO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
70 positions in common, counted across the 90 positions we hold weights for in NANC and 494 in VOO, against full books of 106 and 509.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 417 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for NANC (42.6% of the fund), and 17 for NANC that do not appear in VOO (10.0%).
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
| Stock | Weight in NANC | Weight in VOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.74% | 7.55% | 1.19% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.62% | 5.36% | 1.26% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.44% | 7.05% | 2.61% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.94% | 4.13% | 0.81% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 5.85% | 2.62% | 3.23% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 3.84% | 0.63% | 3.21% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.10% | 2.86% | 1.76% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.54% | 1.41% | 1.13% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 3.60% | 0.30% | 3.30% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.98% | 1.90% | 0.08% |
88.1% of NANC 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, NANC or VOO?
NANC has an expense ratio of 0.72% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $69 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, NANC or VOO?
Over the past year NANC returned +16.70% vs +17.03% for VOO, so VOO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), NANC annualized +21.59% vs +19.93% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, NANC or VOO?
NANC has been the more volatile fund at 14.6% annualized versus 12.4% for VOO. Worst drawdown: NANC -20.9% vs VOO -18.7%.
Should I hold both NANC and VOO?
NANC and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 NANC and VOO?
88.1% of NANC's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 56.6% of VOO's is in holdings NANC also owns. They hold 70 positions in common, counted across the 90 positions we hold weights for in NANC and 494 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, NANC or VOO?
NANC yields 0.18% while VOO yields 1.04%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than NANC?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. NANC led over 3Y and the full window, VOO over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 46.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.