OAKI vs VOO
Oakmark International Large Cap ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, OAKI or VOO?
VOO has been ahead.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y. OAKI is less concentrated, with 33.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.1%.
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 | OAKI | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.65% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $95M | $1.0T |
| Dividend Yield | 0.04% | 1.05% |
| Holdings | 108 | 519 |
| YTD Return | +6.60% | +12.11%Best |
| 1Y Return | +7.56% | +12.50%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.54% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.93% |
| Top 10 Weight | 33.0%Best | 39.1% |
| Fund Family | Oakmark Funds | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 11, 2025 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
OAKI 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 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.
OAKI vs VOO Performance
Oakmark International Large Cap ETF (OAKI) is an ETF from Oakmark Funds and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year OAKI returned +7.56% while VOO returned +12.50%. Year to date, OAKI is up 6.60% versus a gain of 12.11% for VOO.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
OAKI charges 0.65% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $65 vs $3 annually, a gap of $62 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, OAKI currently yields 0.04% against 1.05% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
2.0% of OAKI's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 1.1% of VOO's money is in holdings OAKI also owns.
OAKI and VOO share little of their money.
5 positions in common, counted across the 51 positions we hold weights for in OAKI and 506 in VOO, against full books of 108 and 519.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 496 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for OAKI (98.9% of the fund), and 7 for OAKI that do not appear in VOO (11.4%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of OAKI and VOO you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, OAKI or VOO?
OAKI has an expense ratio of 0.65% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $62 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, OAKI or VOO?
Over the past year OAKI returned +7.56% vs +12.50% for VOO, so VOO leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between OAKI and VOO?
2.0% of OAKI's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 1.1% of VOO's is in holdings OAKI also owns. They hold 5 positions in common, counted across the 51 positions we hold weights for in OAKI and 506 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, OAKI or VOO?
OAKI yields 0.04% while VOO yields 1.05%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than OAKI?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y. OAKI is less concentrated, with 33.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.