SQLV vs VTI
Royce Quant Small Cap Quality Value ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, SQLV or VTI?
Small Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. SQLV led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. SQLV is less concentrated, with 8.8% 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 | SQLV | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $40M | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.95% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 322 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +20.97%Best | +13.60% |
| 1Y Return | +22.80%Best | +18.17% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.81% | +23.04%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.07% | +12.14%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.6% | 16.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -49.8% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,071 | $17,734Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 8.8%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 12, 2017 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 13, 2017 to Sep 25, 2026 (9.2 years).
SQLV 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 9.2 years both funds cover.
SQLV vs VTI Performance
Royce Quant Small Cap Quality Value ETF (SQLV) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year SQLV returned +22.80% while VTI returned +18.17%. Year to date, SQLV is up 20.97% versus a gain of 13.60% for VTI.
Over three years, SQLV compounded at +14.81% per year against +23.04% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +7.07% and +12.14% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +13.71% annualized vs +8.91%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SQLV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.6% compared with 16.4% 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 -49.8% for SQLV and -35.0% 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 0.85. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
SQLV charges 0.60% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $60 vs $3 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, SQLV currently yields 0.95% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
97.3% of SQLV's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.5% of VTI's money is in holdings SQLV also owns.
Most of SQLV is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
311 positions in common, counted across the 317 positions we hold weights for in SQLV and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 322 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,103 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for SQLV (97.0% of the fund), and 5 for SQLV that do not appear in VTI (1.3%).
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 SQLV | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| VCTRVictory Receivables Corp | 1.19% | 0.01% | 1.18% |
| ASGNAsgn Inc | 1.09% | 0.00% | 1.09% |
| DXCDxc Technology Co. | 0.94% | 0.00% | 0.94% |
| EMBCEmbecta | 0.84% | 0.00% | 0.84% |
| FHIFederated Investors Inc. | 0.78% | 0.01% | 0.77% |
| HRBH&R Block, Inc. | 0.77% | 0.01% | 0.76% |
| SMSm Energy Co | 0.76% | 0.01% | 0.75% |
| KDKyndryl Hldgs Inc | 0.75% | 0.00% | 0.75% |
| TGNATrinet Group Inc | 0.73% | 0.00% | 0.73% |
| CRGYCrescent Energ-A | 0.72% | 0.00% | 0.72% |
97.3% of SQLV 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, SQLV or VTI?
SQLV has an expense ratio of 0.60% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, SQLV or VTI?
Over the past year SQLV returned +22.80% vs +18.17% for VTI, so SQLV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), SQLV annualized +8.91% vs +13.71% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, SQLV or VTI?
SQLV has been the more volatile fund at 22.6% annualized versus 16.4% for VTI. Worst drawdown: SQLV -49.8% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both SQLV and VTI?
SQLV and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.85, 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 SQLV and VTI?
97.3% of SQLV's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.5% of VTI's is in holdings SQLV also owns. They hold 311 positions in common, counted across the 317 positions we hold weights for in SQLV and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, SQLV or VTI?
SQLV yields 0.95% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than SQLV?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. SQLV led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. SQLV is less concentrated, with 8.8% 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.