RFV vs VTI
Invesco S&P Midcap 400 Pure Value ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. RFV delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | RFV | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $334M | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.69% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 101 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +17.91% | +13.87% | |
| 1Y Return | +28.99% | +23.31% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.33% | +21.17% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.61% | +12.23% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 24.2% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -73.1% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 1, 2006 | May 24, 2001 |
RFV vs VTI Performance
Invesco S&P Midcap 400 Pure Value ETF (RFV) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year RFV returned +28.99% while VTI returned +23.31%. Year to date, RFV is up 17.91% versus a gain of 13.87% for VTI.
Over three years, RFV compounded at +14.33% per year against +21.17% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +11.61% and +12.23% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, RFV has the edge at +8.64% annualized vs +8.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RFV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 24.2% 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 -73.1% for RFV 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 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RFV 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, RFV currently yields 1.69% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
RFV and VTI share 75 holdings out of 2806 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, RFV or VTI?
RFV 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, RFV or VTI?
Over the past year RFV returned +28.99% vs +23.31% for VTI, so RFV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), RFV annualized +8.64% vs +8.13% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, RFV or VTI?
RFV has been the more volatile fund at 24.2% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: RFV -73.1% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both RFV and VTI?
RFV and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between RFV and VTI?
RFV and VTI share 75 common holdings with a 0.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2806 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, RFV or VTI?
RFV yields 1.69% while VTI yields 1.07%, so RFV 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.