RWO vs VTI
State Street SPDR Dow Jones Global Real Estate ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, RWO or VTI?
Mid Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
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 45.2%.
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 | RWO | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $1.3B | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 3.23% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 244 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +8.92% | +12.08%Best |
| 1Y Return | +8.70% | +16.31%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +9.38% | +20.83%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.40% | +11.89%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.1% | 16.2%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -69.6% | -52.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $10,720 | $17,537Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 45.2% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 7, 2008 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 13, 2008 to Sep 14, 2026 (18.3 years).
RWO 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 18.3 years both funds cover.
RWO vs VTI Performance
State Street SPDR Dow Jones Global Real Estate ETF (RWO) is an ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year RWO returned +8.70% while VTI returned +16.31%. Year to date, RWO is up 8.92% versus a gain of 12.08% for VTI.
Over three years, RWO compounded at +9.38% per year against +20.83% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +1.40% and +11.89% respectively. Across the full 18-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +10.04% annualized vs +0.78%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RWO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.1% compared with 16.2% 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 -69.6% for RWO 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 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RWO charges 0.50% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $3 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RWO currently yields 3.23% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
72.7% of RWO's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 1.7% of VTI's money is in holdings RWO also owns.
Most of RWO is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
98 positions in common, counted across the 222 positions we hold weights for in RWO and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 244 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,094 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for RWO (95.7% of the fund), and 2 for RWO that do not appear in VTI (0.1%).
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 RWO | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| WELLWelltower, Inc. | 9.83% | 0.23% | 9.60% |
| PLDPrologis Inc | 7.82% | 0.19% | 7.63% |
| EQIXEquinix Inc. Real Estate Investment Trust | 6.09% | 0.14% | 5.95% |
| SPGSimon Property Group Inc | 4.06% | 0.10% | 3.96% |
| DLRDigital Realty Trust Inc. | 3.81% | 0.09% | 3.72% |
| ORealty Income Corp. | 3.37% | 0.08% | 3.29% |
| PSAPublic Storage | 3.04% | 0.08% | 2.96% |
| EQRVivmark Residential | 2.81% | 0.03% | 2.78% |
| VTRVentas Inc . | 2.61% | 0.06% | 2.55% |
| EXRExtra Space Storage Inc. | 1.76% | 0.04% | 1.72% |
72.7% of RWO 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, RWO or VTI?
RWO has an expense ratio of 0.50% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, RWO or VTI?
Over the past year RWO returned +8.70% vs +16.31% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (18 years), RWO annualized +0.78% vs +10.04% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, RWO or VTI?
RWO has been the more volatile fund at 20.1% annualized versus 16.2% for VTI. Worst drawdown: RWO -69.6% vs VTI -52.6%.
Should I hold both RWO and VTI?
RWO and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, 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 RWO and VTI?
72.7% of RWO's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 1.7% of VTI's is in holdings RWO also owns. They hold 98 positions in common, counted across the 222 positions we hold weights for in RWO and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, RWO or VTI?
RWO yields 3.23% while VTI yields 1.03%, so RWO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than RWO?
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 45.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.