PCLC vs VOO

PCLC vs VOO

Which is better, PCLC or VOO?

Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.

VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.6%.

Lower Fees: VOOLess Concentrated: VOO

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

MetricPCLCVOO
Expense Ratio0.50%0.03%Best
AUM$1M$997.4B
Dividend Yield0.00%1.04%
Holdings39509
YTD Return+0.79%+11.98%Best
1Y Return-+16.45%
3Y Return (annualized)-+21.19%
5Y Return (annualized)-+12.95%
Top 10 Weight55.6%37.6%Best
Fund FamilyPolen CapitalVanguard (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap GrowthLarge Cap Blend
InceptionMay 18, 2026Sep 7, 2010

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

PCLC 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.

PCLC vs VOO Performance

Polen 5Perspectives Large Growth ETF (PCLC) is an ETF from Polen Capital and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Year to date, PCLC is up 0.79% versus a gain of 11.98% for VOO.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

PCLC charges 0.50% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $3 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PCLC currently yields 0.00% against 1.04% for VOO.

Holdings Overlap

PCLC already in VOO71.9%
VOO already in PCLC38.0%

71.9% of PCLC's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 38.0% of VOO's money is in holdings PCLC also owns.

Most of PCLC is already inside VOO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.

25 positions in common, counted across the 39 positions we hold weights for in PCLC and 494 in VOO, against full books of 39 and 509.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 462 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for PCLC (61.2% of the fund), and 7 for PCLC that do not appear in VOO (12.3%).

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

StockWeight in PCLCWeight in VOODifference
NVDANvidia Corp8.37%7.55%0.82%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A7.52%3.24%4.28%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc5.78%4.13%1.65%
AAPLApple, Inc2.14%7.05%4.91%
TSLATesla Inc7.37%1.36%6.01%
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc6.34%1.21%5.13%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp1.38%5.36%3.98%
AVGOBroadcom Inc3.36%2.86%0.50%
INTCIntel Corporation4.28%0.66%3.62%
CVNACarvana Co3.61%0.07%3.54%

71.9% of PCLC 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.

PCLCVOO

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, PCLC or VOO?

PCLC has an expense ratio of 0.50% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between PCLC and VOO?

71.9% of PCLC's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 38.0% of VOO's is in holdings PCLC also owns. They hold 25 positions in common, counted across the 39 positions we hold weights for in PCLC and 494 in VOO.

Which pays a higher dividend, PCLC or VOO?

PCLC yields 0.00% while VOO yields 1.04%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VOO better than PCLC?

VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.