RFG vs VTI
Invesco S&P Midcap 400 Pure Growth ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. RFG delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | RFG | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $361M | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.15% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 100 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +15.79% | +12.65% | |
| 1Y Return | +25.18% | +21.39% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.20% | +21.54% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.50% | +12.11% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.6% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -52.0% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 1, 2006 | May 24, 2001 |
RFG vs VTI Performance
Invesco S&P Midcap 400 Pure Growth ETF (RFG) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year RFG returned +25.18% while VTI returned +21.39%. Year to date, RFG is up 15.79% versus a gain of 12.65% for VTI.
Over three years, RFG compounded at +16.20% per year against +21.54% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +7.50% and +12.11% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, RFG has the edge at +9.36% annualized vs +8.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.6% compared with 15.3% 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 -52.0% for RFG 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 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RFG charges 0.35% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $3 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RFG currently yields 0.15% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
RFG and VTI share 76 holdings out of 2810 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.2% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, RFG or VTI?
RFG has an expense ratio of 0.35% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $32 per year of difference.
Which performed better, RFG or VTI?
Over the past year RFG returned +25.18% vs +21.39% for VTI, so RFG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), RFG annualized +9.36% vs +8.07% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, RFG or VTI?
RFG has been the more volatile fund at 19.6% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: RFG -52.0% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both RFG and VTI?
RFG and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 RFG and VTI?
RFG and VTI share 76 common holdings with a 1.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2810 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, RFG or VTI?
RFG yields 0.15% 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.