RFM vs VTI
RiverNorth Flexible Municipal Income Fund, Inc. vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | RFM | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 3.68% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $97M | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 6.92% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 93 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +8.09% | +13.14% | |
| 1Y Return | +13.72% | +22.35% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +5.34% | +21.83% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -1.32% | +12.01% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -33.8% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | RiverNorth | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 26, 2020 | May 24, 2001 |
RFM vs VTI Performance
RiverNorth Flexible Municipal Income Fund, Inc. (RFM) is a ETF from RiverNorth and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year RFM returned +13.72% while VTI returned +22.35%. Year to date, RFM is up 8.09% versus a gain of 13.14% for VTI.
Over three years, RFM compounded at +5.34% per year against +21.83% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are -1.32% and +12.01% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.09% annualized vs +2.32%. 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 15.0% 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 -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 0.62. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
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 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
RFM and VTI share 1 holdings out of 2833 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in RFM | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MHD | 9.50% | 0.00% | 9.50% |
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. On a $10,000 investment, that is $365 per year of difference.
Which performed better, RFM or VTI?
Over the past year RFM returned +13.72% vs +22.35% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), RFM annualized +2.32% vs +8.09% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, RFM or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 15.0% for RFM. Worst drawdown: RFM -33.8% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both RFM and VTI?
RFM and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.62, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between RFM and VTI?
RFM and VTI share 1 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2833 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, RFM or VTI?
RFM yields 6.92% while VTI yields 1.07%, so RFM 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.