STBQ vs VTI
Amplify Stablecoin Technology Leaders ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, STBQ or VTI?
Multi Alternative against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio.
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 | STBQ | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.69% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $2M | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 31 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | -11.17% | +11.65%Best |
| 1Y Return | - | +17.34% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +20.35% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.72% |
| Fund Family | Amplify ETFs | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Alternative | Equity |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 23, 2025 | May 24, 2001 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window, Top 10 Weight.
STBQ 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
STBQ vs VTI Performance
Amplify Stablecoin Technology Leaders ETF (STBQ) is an ETF from Amplify ETFs and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Year to date, STBQ is down 11.17% versus a gain of 11.65% for VTI.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
STBQ charges 0.69% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $69 vs $3 annually, a gap of $66 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, STBQ currently yields 0.00% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
At least 48.7% of STBQ's money is in holdings VTI also owns.
Stated as a floor: for VTI, our book for it covers 90.6% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
The two holdings books were reported 63 days apart, STBQ as of Sep 1, 2026 and VTI as of Jun 30, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
13 positions in common, counted across the 29 positions we hold weights for in STBQ and 2,787 in VTI, against full books of 31 and 3,543.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in STBQ | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| VVisa Inc | 4.87% | 0.77% | 4.10% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 5.04% | 0.56% | 4.48% |
| PYPLPaypal Holdings Inc | 5.34% | 0.05% | 5.29% |
| SQBlock, Inc | 5.09% | 0.06% | 5.03% |
| COINCoinbase Global, Inc. | 5.07% | 0.04% | 5.03% |
| CRCLCircle Internet Group In | 4.99% | 0.01% | 4.98% |
| CMPOCOMPOSECURE INC-A | 4.72% | 0.00% | 4.72% |
| SOFISofi Technologies Inc | 4.64% | 0.03% | 4.61% |
| GLXY:CAGalaxy Digital Inc-A | 3.36% | 0.00% | 3.36% |
| FLYWFlywire Corp | 3.02% | 0.00% | 3.02% |
48.7% of STBQ 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, STBQ or VTI?
STBQ has an expense ratio of 0.69% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $66 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between STBQ and VTI?
At least 48.7% of STBQ's money is in holdings VTI also owns. Our book for VTI is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 13 positions in common, counted across the 29 positions we hold weights for in STBQ and 2,787 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, STBQ or VTI?
STBQ yields 0.00% while VTI yields 1.03%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than STBQ?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.