RZG vs VTI
Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 Pure Growth ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. RZG delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | RZG | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $138M | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.44% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 129 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +25.46% | +13.12% | |
| 1Y Return | +28.45% | +20.82% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.37% | +21.43% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.62% | +11.84% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.6% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -58.8% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 1, 2006 | May 24, 2001 |
RZG vs VTI Performance
Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 Pure Growth ETF (RZG) is a ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year RZG returned +28.45% while VTI returned +20.82%. Year to date, RZG is up 25.46% versus a gain of 13.12% for VTI.
Over three years, RZG compounded at +18.37% per year against +21.43% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +5.62% and +11.84% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, RZG has the edge at +8.81% annualized vs +8.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RZG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.6% 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 -58.8% for RZG 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
RZG 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, RZG currently yields 0.44% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
RZG and VTI share 101 holdings out of 2812 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.2% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, RZG or VTI?
RZG 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, RZG or VTI?
Over the past year RZG returned +28.45% vs +20.82% for VTI, so RZG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), RZG annualized +8.81% vs +8.08% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, RZG or VTI?
RZG has been the more volatile fund at 21.6% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: RZG -58.8% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both RZG and VTI?
RZG 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 RZG and VTI?
RZG and VTI share 101 common holdings with a 0.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2812 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, RZG or VTI?
RZG yields 0.44% while VTI yields 1.07%, so VTI 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.