RFM vs VTI
RiverNorth Flexible Municipal Income Fund, Inc. vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, RFM or VTI?
VTI has been ahead.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.0%.
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 | RFM | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 3.68% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $94M | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 93 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +1.49% | +12.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +1.77% | +16.08%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +4.29% | +21.01%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -2.62% | +12.36%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1%Best | 16.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.8% | -25.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $8,757 | $17,908Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 59.0% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | RiverNorth | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity |
| Style | - | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Mar 26, 2020 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 27, 2020 to Sep 18, 2026 (6.5 years).
RFM 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 6.5 years both funds cover.
RFM vs VTI Performance
RiverNorth Flexible Municipal Income Fund, Inc. (RFM) is an ETF from RiverNorth and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year RFM returned +1.77% while VTI returned +16.08%. Year to date, RFM is up 1.49% versus a gain of 12.30% for VTI.
Over three years, RFM compounded at +4.29% per year against +21.01% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are -2.62% and +12.36% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +19.63% annualized vs +1.30%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.2% compared with 15.1% for RFM. 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 -33.8% for RFM and -25.4% 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 0.62. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RFM charges 3.68% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $368 vs $3 annually, a gap of $365 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RFM currently yields 6.92% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
9.5% of RFM's money is in holdings VTI also owns.
RFM and VTI share little of their money.
The two holdings books were reported 122 days apart, RFM as of Mar 31, 2026 and VTI as of Jul 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
1 positions in common, counted across the 47 positions we hold weights for in RFM and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 93 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,150 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for RFM (97.5% of the fund), and 45 for RFM that do not appear in VTI (93.5%).
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
| Stock | Weight in RFM | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MHDBlackrock Muniholdings Fund | 9.50% | 0.00% | 9.50% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of RFM 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, RFM or VTI?
RFM has an expense ratio of 3.68% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $365 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, RFM or VTI?
Over the past year RFM returned +1.77% vs +16.08% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), RFM annualized +1.30% vs +19.63% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, RFM or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 16.2% annualized versus 15.1% for RFM. Worst drawdown: RFM -33.8% vs VTI -25.4%.
Should I hold both RFM and VTI?
RFM and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.62, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between RFM and VTI?
9.5% of RFM's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.0% of VTI's is in holdings RFM also owns. They hold 1 positions in common, counted across the 47 positions we hold weights for in RFM and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, RFM or VTI?
RFM yields 6.92% while VTI yields 1.03%, so RFM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than RFM?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 59.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.