RWL vs VTI
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, RWL or VTI?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. RWL led over 1Y and 5Y, VTI over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. RWL is less concentrated, with 23.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%.
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 | RWL | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.39% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $10.0B | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.20% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 507 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +16.32%Best | +11.53% |
| 1Y Return | +23.28%Best | +15.74% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.77% | +20.67%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.86%Best | +11.59% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.5% | 16.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -55.3% | -52.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,136Best | $17,303 |
| Top 10 Weight | 23.3%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 19, 2008 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 22, 2008 to Sep 15, 2026 (18.6 years).
RWL 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 18.6 years both funds cover.
RWL vs VTI Performance
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year RWL returned +23.28% while VTI returned +15.74%. Year to date, RWL is up 16.32% versus a gain of 11.53% for VTI.
Over three years, RWL compounded at +19.77% per year against +20.67% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +13.86% and +11.59% respectively. Across the full 19-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +10.13% annualized vs +9.99%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RWL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.5% compared with 16.1% 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 -55.3% for RWL and -52.6% 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 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RWL charges 0.39% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $3 annually, a gap of $36 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RWL currently yields 1.20% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
98.9% of RWL's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 86.7% of VTI's money is in holdings RWL also owns.
Most of RWL is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
490 positions in common, counted across the 496 positions we hold weights for in RWL and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 507 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 666 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for RWL (11.0% of the fund), and 4 for RWL that do not appear in VTI (0.5%).
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 RWL | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 2.41% | 6.29% | 3.88% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 1.37% | 6.40% | 5.03% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.98% | 3.65% | 0.33% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 2.00% | 4.79% | 2.79% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 0.99% | 2.90% | 1.91% |
| WMTWalmart, Inc. | 3.11% | 0.68% | 2.43% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 0.99% | 2.31% | 1.32% |
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 1.92% | 1.28% | 0.64% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.37% | 2.56% | 2.19% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.61% | 1.31% | 0.30% |
98.9% of RWL is already inside VTI.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, RWL or VTI?
RWL has an expense ratio of 0.39% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $36 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, RWL or VTI?
Over the past year RWL returned +23.28% vs +15.74% for VTI, so RWL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (19 years), RWL annualized +9.99% vs +10.13% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, RWL or VTI?
RWL has been the more volatile fund at 16.5% annualized versus 16.1% for VTI. Worst drawdown: RWL -55.3% vs VTI -52.6%.
Should I hold both RWL and VTI?
RWL and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between RWL and VTI?
98.9% of RWL's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 86.7% of VTI's is in holdings RWL also owns. They hold 490 positions in common, counted across the 496 positions we hold weights for in RWL and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, RWL or VTI?
RWL yields 1.20% while VTI yields 1.03%, so RWL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than RWL?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. RWL led over 1Y and 5Y, VTI over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. RWL is less concentrated, with 23.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.