PALC vs VTI
Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, PALC or VTI?
VTI has been ahead.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. PALC is less concentrated, with 26.7% 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 | PALC | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $197M | $690.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 361 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +4.48% | +14.43%Best |
| 1Y Return | +8.82% | +18.05%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.92% | +22.93%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.06% | +12.74%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -24.4%Best | -25.4% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,734 | $18,213Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 26.7%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 24, 2020 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 25, 2020 to Oct 12, 2026 (6.3 years).
PALC 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 6.3 years both funds cover.
PALC vs VTI Performance
Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PALC) is an ETF from Pacer ETFs and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year PALC returned +8.82% while VTI returned +18.05%. Year to date, PALC is up 4.48% versus a gain of 14.43% for VTI.
Over three years, PALC compounded at +14.92% per year against +22.93% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +8.06% and +12.74% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +16.76% annualized vs +14.50%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PALC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 15.6% 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 -24.4% for PALC and -25.4% 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 0.85. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
PALC charges 0.60% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $60 vs $3 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PALC currently yields 1.06% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
97.8% of PALC's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 12.7% of VTI's money is in holdings PALC also owns.
Most of PALC is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
173 positions in common, counted across the 176 positions we hold weights for in PALC and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 361 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 978 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for PALC (84.7% of the fund), and 2 for PALC that do not appear in VTI (0.7%).
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 PALC | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Incorporated | 4.31% | 0.52% | 3.79% |
| NFLXNetflix, Inc. | 3.42% | 0.42% | 3.00% |
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 2.53% | 1.28% | 1.25% |
| CRMSalesforce Inc Crm Us Equity | 3.20% | 0.20% | 3.00% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 2.75% | 0.55% | 2.20% |
| TAT&T Inc | 2.44% | 0.22% | 2.22% |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co. | 2.06% | 0.37% | 1.69% |
| VZVerizon Communications Inc Vz | 2.15% | 0.24% | 1.91% |
| ABTAbbott Laboratories | 1.94% | 0.26% | 1.68% |
| CCitigroup Inc. | 1.84% | 0.30% | 1.54% |
97.8% of PALC 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, PALC or VTI?
PALC has an expense ratio of 0.60% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, PALC or VTI?
Over the past year PALC returned +8.82% vs +18.05% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), PALC annualized +14.50% vs +16.76% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, PALC or VTI?
PALC has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 15.6% for VTI. Worst drawdown: PALC -24.4% vs VTI -25.4%.
Should I hold both PALC and VTI?
PALC and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.85, 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 PALC and VTI?
97.8% of PALC's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 12.7% of VTI's is in holdings PALC also owns. They hold 173 positions in common, counted across the 176 positions we hold weights for in PALC and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, PALC or VTI?
PALC yields 1.06% while VTI yields 1.03%, so PALC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than PALC?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. PALC is less concentrated, with 26.7% 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.