PSFM vs VTI
Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | PSFM | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $25M | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 7 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +11.35% | +14.22% | |
| 1Y Return | +15.44% | +22.19% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +13.02% | +21.27% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.69% | +12.23% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.3% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -14.3% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Pacer ETFs | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 31, 2021 | May 24, 2001 |
PSFM vs VTI Performance
Pacer Swan SOS Flex (April) ETF (PSFM) is a ETF from Pacer ETFs and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year PSFM returned +15.44% while VTI returned +22.19%. Year to date, PSFM is up 11.35% versus a gain of 14.22% for VTI.
Over three years, PSFM compounded at +13.02% per year against +21.27% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +9.69% and +12.23% respectively. Across the full 5-year window we track, PSFM has the edge at +10.50% annualized vs +8.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 9.3% for PSFM. 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 -14.3% for PSFM and -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
PSFM charges 0.49% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $3 annually, a gap of $46 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PSFM currently yields 0.00% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
PSFM and VTI share 0 holdings out of 2784 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, PSFM or VTI?
PSFM has an expense ratio of 0.49% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $46 per year of difference.
Which performed better, PSFM or VTI?
Over the past year PSFM returned +15.44% vs +22.19% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (5 years), PSFM annualized +10.50% vs +8.14% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, PSFM or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 9.3% for PSFM. Worst drawdown: PSFM -14.3% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both PSFM and VTI?
PSFM and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between PSFM and VTI?
PSFM and VTI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2784 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, PSFM or VTI?
PSFM yields 0.00% while VTI yields 1.07%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.