QBSF vs VTI

QBSF vs VTI

Which is better, QBSF or VTI?

Option Writing against Large Cap Blend.

VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: VTIHigher Returns: VTI

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

MetricQBSFVTI
Expense Ratio0.64%0.03%Best
AUM$59M$666.9B
Dividend Yield0.00%1.03%
Holdings53,543
YTD Return+4.30%+12.28%Best
1Y Return+7.05%+16.78%Best
3Y Return (annualized)-+20.89%
5Y Return (annualized)-+11.94%
Volatility (annualized)2.3%Best12.2%
Max Drawdown-1.6%Best-8.9%
$10,000 over 1.2 years$10,920$12,464Best
Fund FamilyAllianzIMVanguard (US)
CategoryAlternativeEquity
StyleOption WritingLarge Cap Blend
InceptionJun 30, 2025May 24, 2001

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 1, 2025 to Sep 17, 2026 (1.2 years).

QBSF 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 1.2 years both funds cover.

QBSF vs VTI Performance

AllianzIM US Equity Buffer15 ETF (QBSF) is an ETF from AllianzIM and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year QBSF returned +7.05% while VTI returned +16.78%. Year to date, QBSF is up 4.30% versus a gain of 12.28% 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 12.2% compared with 2.3% for QBSF. 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 -1.6% for QBSF and -8.9% 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 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.

Fees and Cost Over Time

QBSF charges 0.64% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $64 vs $3 annually, a gap of $61 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QBSF currently yields 0.00% against 1.03% for VTI.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of QBSF and VTI you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

QBSFVTI

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, QBSF or VTI?

QBSF has an expense ratio of 0.64% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $61 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, QBSF or VTI?

Over the past year QBSF returned +7.05% vs +16.78% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), QBSF annualized +7.61% vs +20.15% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, QBSF or VTI?

VTI has been the more volatile fund at 12.2% annualized versus 2.3% for QBSF. Worst drawdown: QBSF -1.6% vs VTI -8.9%.

Should I hold both QBSF and VTI?

QBSF and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, 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, QBSF or VTI?

QBSF yields 0.00% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VTI better than QBSF?

VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.