SMN vs VTI
ProShares UltraShort Materials vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | SMN | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.95% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $4M | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 3.53% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 6 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | -27.85% | +13.14% | |
| 1Y Return | -30.70% | +22.35% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -35.50% | +21.83% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -28.35% | +12.01% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 45.5% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -100.0% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | ProShares | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Alternative | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 30, 2007 | May 24, 2001 |
SMN vs VTI Performance
ProShares UltraShort Materials (SMN) is a ETF from ProShares and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year SMN returned -30.70% while VTI returned +22.35%. Year to date, SMN is down 27.85% versus a gain of 13.14% for VTI.
Over three years, SMN compounded at -35.50% per year against +21.83% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are -28.35% and +12.01% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.09% annualized vs -32.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SMN has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 45.5% 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 -100.0% for SMN 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 -0.78. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
SMN charges 0.95% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $95 vs $3 annually, a gap of $92 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, SMN currently yields 3.53% against 1.07% for VTI.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, SMN or VTI?
SMN has an expense ratio of 0.95% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $92 per year of difference.
Which performed better, SMN or VTI?
Over the past year SMN returned -30.70% vs +22.35% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), SMN annualized -32.35% vs +8.09% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, SMN or VTI?
SMN has been the more volatile fund at 45.5% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: SMN -100.0% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both SMN and VTI?
SMN and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of -0.78, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
Which pays a higher dividend, SMN or VTI?
SMN yields 3.53% while VTI yields 1.07%, so SMN 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.