PQAP vs VTI
PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, PQAP or VTI?
Option Writing against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. PQAP led over 1Y, VTI over the full window.
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 | PQAP | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $31M | $690.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.02% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 16 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +15.95%Best | +14.14% |
| 1Y Return | +18.47%Best | +16.22% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +22.93% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.76% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 6.4%Best | 12.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -10.8%Best | -19.3% |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $13,372 | $13,534Best |
| Fund Family | PGIM Investments | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Option Writing | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 27, 2024 | May 24, 2001 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 2, 2025 to Oct 5, 2026 (1.8 years).
PQAP 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 1.8 years both funds cover.
PQAP vs VTI Performance
PGIM Nasdaq-100 Buffer 12 ETF - April (PQAP) is an ETF from PGIM Investments and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year PQAP returned +18.47% while VTI returned +16.22%. Year to date, PQAP is up 15.95% versus a gain of 14.14% for VTI.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.7% compared with 6.4% for PQAP. 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 -10.8% for PQAP 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 0.83. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
PQAP charges 0.50% per year while VTI 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, PQAP currently yields 0.02% against 1.03% for VTI.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of PQAP and VTI 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, PQAP or VTI?
PQAP has an expense ratio of 0.50% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, PQAP or VTI?
Over the past year PQAP returned +18.47% vs +16.22% for VTI, so PQAP leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), PQAP annualized +17.52% vs +18.31% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, PQAP or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 12.7% annualized versus 6.4% for PQAP. Worst drawdown: PQAP -10.8% vs VTI -19.3%.
Should I hold both PQAP and VTI?
PQAP and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.83, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, PQAP or VTI?
PQAP yields 0.02% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than PQAP?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. PQAP led over 1Y, VTI over the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.