OASC vs VTI
OneAscent Enhanced Small and Mid Cap ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, OASC or VTI?
Small Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. OASC led over 1Y, VTI over the full window. OASC is less concentrated, with 21.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%.
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 | OASC | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $95M | $690.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.46% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 317 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +17.23%Best | +13.35% |
| 1Y Return | +21.43%Best | +15.92% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +23.41% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.83% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 12.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -27.3% | -19.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.3 years | $14,080 | $14,596Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 21.0%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | OneAscent Investments | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 13, 2024 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 13, 2024 to Oct 2, 2026 (2.3 years).
OASC vs VTI 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 2.3 years both funds cover.
OASC vs VTI Performance
OneAscent Enhanced Small and Mid Cap ETF (OASC) is an ETF from OneAscent Investments and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year OASC returned +21.43% while VTI returned +15.92%. Year to date, OASC is up 17.23% versus a gain of 13.35% for VTI.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
OASC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 12.0% for VTI. 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 -27.3% for OASC and -19.3% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.74. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
OASC charges 0.69% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $3 annually, a gap of $66 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, OASC currently yields 0.46% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
94.3% of OASC's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 1.6% of VTI's money is in holdings OASC also owns.
Most of OASC is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 46 days apart, OASC as of Sep 15, 2026 and VTI as of Jul 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
150 positions in common, counted across the 157 positions we hold weights for in OASC and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 317 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,071 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for OASC (96.0% of the fund), and 3 for OASC that do not appear in VTI (2.6%).
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 OASC | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| RGAReinsurance Group of America, Incorporated | 3.68% | 0.02% | 3.66% |
| NJRNew Jersey Res | 2.43% | 0.01% | 2.42% |
| NTRSNorthern Trust Corp. | 2.30% | 0.04% | 2.26% |
| HASHasbro Inc. | 2.10% | 0.02% | 2.08% |
| CFCf Industries Holdings Inc. | 1.80% | 0.03% | 1.77% |
| RLRalph Lauren Corp. Class A | 1.75% | 0.02% | 1.73% |
| AMGAffiliated Managers Group Inc. | 1.65% | 0.01% | 1.64% |
| DINOHollyfrontier | 1.55% | 0.02% | 1.53% |
| WTSWatts Water Technologies Inc | 1.55% | 0.01% | 1.54% |
| CCKCrown Holdings Inc. | 1.53% | 0.02% | 1.51% |
94.3% of OASC is already inside VTI.
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, OASC or VTI?
OASC has an expense ratio of 0.69% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $66 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, OASC or VTI?
Over the past year OASC returned +21.43% vs +15.92% for VTI, so OASC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), OASC annualized +16.04% vs +17.87% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, OASC or VTI?
OASC has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 12.0% for VTI. Worst drawdown: OASC -27.3% vs VTI -19.3%.
Should I hold both OASC and VTI?
OASC and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.74, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between OASC and VTI?
94.3% of OASC's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 1.6% of VTI's is in holdings OASC also owns. They hold 150 positions in common, counted across the 157 positions we hold weights for in OASC and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, OASC or VTI?
OASC yields 0.46% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than OASC?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. OASC led over 1Y, VTI over the full window. OASC is less concentrated, with 21.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.