RZG vs VTI
Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 Pure Growth ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, RZG or VTI?
Small Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. RZG led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. RZG is less concentrated, with 17.0% 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 | RZG | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $127M | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.46% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 129 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +18.59%Best | +12.08% |
| 1Y Return | +20.32%Best | +16.31% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.24% | +20.83%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +4.80% | +11.89%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.6% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -58.8% | -56.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $12,642 | $17,537Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 17.0%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Mar 1, 2006 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 7, 2006 to Sep 14, 2026 (20.5 years).
RZG 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 20.5 years both funds cover.
RZG vs VTI Performance
Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 Pure Growth ETF (RZG) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year RZG returned +20.32% while VTI returned +16.31%. Year to date, RZG is up 18.59% versus a gain of 12.08% for VTI.
Over three years, RZG compounded at +17.24% per year against +20.83% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +4.80% and +11.89% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +9.44% annualized vs +8.49%.
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 15.6% 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 what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
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 0.46% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
96.4% of RZG's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.6% of VTI's money is in holdings RZG also owns.
Most of RZG is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
124 positions in common, counted across the 128 positions we hold weights for in RZG and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 129 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,096 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for RZG (96.9% of the fund), and 4 for RZG that do not appear in VTI (3.6%).
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 RZG | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACMRAcm Research Inc | 2.26% | 0.01% | 2.25% |
| PTGXProtagonist Therapeutics Inc | 1.98% | 0.01% | 1.97% |
| AAMIAcadian Asset Management Inc | 1.89% | 0.00% | 1.89% |
| DAVEDave Inc Common Stock Usd.0001 | 1.85% | 0.01% | 1.84% |
| CHEFChefs' Warehouse, Inc. | 1.65% | 0.01% | 1.64% |
| DXPEDxp Enterprises Inc. | 1.62% | 0.00% | 1.62% |
| SNEXStonex Group Inc | 1.49% | 0.01% | 1.48% |
| ENVAEnova International Inc. (usd) | 1.44% | 0.01% | 1.43% |
| LQDALiquidia Technologies Inc | 1.34% | 0.01% | 1.33% |
| EZPWEzcorp, Inc. - Class A | 1.34% | 0.00% | 1.34% |
96.4% of RZG 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, RZG or VTI?
RZG has an expense ratio of 0.35% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, RZG or VTI?
Over the past year RZG returned +20.32% vs +16.31% for VTI, so RZG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), RZG annualized +8.49% vs +9.44% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, RZG or VTI?
RZG has been the more volatile fund at 21.6% annualized versus 15.6% 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 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 RZG and VTI?
96.4% of RZG's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.6% of VTI's is in holdings RZG also owns. They hold 124 positions in common, counted across the 128 positions we hold weights for in RZG and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, RZG or VTI?
RZG yields 0.46% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than RZG?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. RZG led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. RZG is less concentrated, with 17.0% 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.