VTI vs WBIF
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF vs WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. WBIF delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | VTI | WBIF | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 1.65% | |
| AUM | $666.9B | $24M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.07% | 0.06% | |
| Holdings | 3,543 | 70 | |
| YTD Return | +13.14% | +19.20% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.35% | +25.42% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.83% | +10.72% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.01% | +4.12% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.3% | 12.0% | |
| Max Drawdown | -56.6% | -20.3% | |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | WBI Investments | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 24, 2001 | Aug 25, 2014 |
VTI vs WBIF Performance
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US) and WBI BullBear Value 3000 ETF (WBIF) is a ETF from WBI Investments. Over the past year VTI returned +22.35% while WBIF returned +25.42%. Year to date, VTI is up 13.14% versus a gain of 19.20% for WBIF.
Over three years, VTI compounded at +21.83% per year against +10.72% for WBIF; over five years the annualized figures are +12.01% and +4.12% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.09% annualized vs +4.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 12.0% for WBIF. 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 -56.6% for VTI and -20.3% for WBIF. 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 0.73. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
VTI charges 0.03% per year while WBIF charges 1.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $165 annually, a gap of $162 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, VTI currently yields 1.07% against 0.06% for WBIF.
Holdings Overlap
VTI and WBIF share 56 holdings out of 2800 unique holdings combined, representing a 5.2% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, VTI or WBIF?
VTI has an expense ratio of 0.03% while WBIF charges 1.65%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $162 per year of difference.
Which performed better, VTI or WBIF?
Over the past year VTI returned +22.35% vs +25.42% for WBIF, so WBIF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), VTI annualized +8.09% vs +4.27% for WBIF. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, VTI or WBIF?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 12.0% for WBIF. Worst drawdown: VTI -56.6% vs WBIF -20.3%.
Should I hold both VTI and WBIF?
VTI and WBIF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.73, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between VTI and WBIF?
VTI and WBIF share 56 common holdings with a 5.2% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2800 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, VTI or WBIF?
VTI yields 1.07% while WBIF yields 0.06%, so VTI 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.