TGRW vs VOO
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, TGRW or VOO?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Blend.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 60.2%.
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 | TGRW | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.52% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $1.0B | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 69 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +5.41% | +13.31%Best |
| 1Y Return | +6.14% | +17.07%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.15% | +22.72%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.50% | +13.19%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.0% | 15.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -43.3% | -24.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,356 | $18,580Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 60.2% | 37.6%Best |
| Fund Family | T.Rowe Price | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Aug 4, 2020 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 5, 2020 to Sep 23, 2026 (6.1 years).
TGRW vs VOO 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 6.1 years both funds cover.
TGRW vs VOO Performance
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock ETF (TGRW) is an ETF from T.Rowe Price and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year TGRW returned +6.14% while VOO returned +17.07%. Year to date, TGRW is up 5.41% versus a gain of 13.31% for VOO.
Over three years, TGRW compounded at +21.15% per year against +22.72% for VOO; over five years the annualized figures are +7.50% and +13.19% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, VOO has the edge at +16.16% annualized vs +11.26%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TGRW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.0% compared with 15.4% for VOO. 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 -43.3% for TGRW and -24.5% for VOO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
TGRW charges 0.52% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $52 vs $3 annually, a gap of $49 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, TGRW currently yields 0.00% against 1.04% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
89.9% of TGRW's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 50.1% of VOO's money is in holdings TGRW also owns.
Most of TGRW is already inside VOO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
53 positions in common, counted across the 70 positions we hold weights for in TGRW and 494 in VOO, against full books of 69 and 509.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 434 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for TGRW (49.0% of the fund), and 10 for TGRW that do not appear in VOO (2.7%).
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 TGRW | Weight in VOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 14.71% | 7.55% | 7.16% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 12.21% | 3.24% | 8.97% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.44% | 7.05% | 0.61% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.36% | 5.36% | 0.00% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 6.24% | 2.86% | 3.38% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 1.65% | 4.13% | 2.48% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.30% | 1.90% | 1.40% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 3.41% | 1.41% | 2.00% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.47% | 1.21% | 2.26% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.66% | 1.44% | 1.22% |
89.9% of TGRW is already inside VOO.
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, TGRW or VOO?
TGRW has an expense ratio of 0.52% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $49 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, TGRW or VOO?
Over the past year TGRW returned +6.14% vs +17.07% for VOO, so VOO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), TGRW annualized +11.26% vs +16.16% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, TGRW or VOO?
TGRW has been the more volatile fund at 20.0% annualized versus 15.4% for VOO. Worst drawdown: TGRW -43.3% vs VOO -24.5%.
Should I hold both TGRW and VOO?
TGRW and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between TGRW and VOO?
89.9% of TGRW's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 50.1% of VOO's is in holdings TGRW also owns. They hold 53 positions in common, counted across the 70 positions we hold weights for in TGRW and 494 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, TGRW or VOO?
TGRW yields 0.00% while VOO yields 1.04%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than TGRW?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 60.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.