VTI vs XBJA

VTI vs XBJA

Which is better, VTI or XBJA?

Large Cap Blend against Option Writing.

VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92.

Lower Fees: VTIHigher Returns: VTI

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

MetricVTIXBJA
Expense Ratio0.03%Best0.79%
AUM$666.9B$93M
Dividend Yield1.03%0.00%
Holdings3,54314
YTD Return+12.34%Best+7.96%
1Y Return+18.37%Best+11.22%
3Y Return (annualized)+20.62%Best+11.35%
5Y Return (annualized)+11.68%-
Volatility (annualized)15.8%10.0%Best
Max Drawdown-25.4%-17.4%Best
$10,000 over 4.7 years$16,498Best$13,938
Fund FamilyVanguard (US)Innovator ETFs Trust
CategoryEquityAlternative
StyleLarge Cap BlendOption Writing
InceptionMay 24, 2001Dec 31, 2021

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 3, 2022 to Sep 9, 2026 (4.7 years).

VTI vs XBJA 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 4.7 years both funds cover.

VTI vs XBJA Performance

Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US) and Innovator US Equity Accelerated 9 Buffer ETF - January (XBJA) is an ETF from Innovator ETFs Trust. Over the past year VTI returned +18.37% while XBJA returned +11.22%. Year to date, VTI is up 12.34% versus a gain of 7.96% for XBJA.

Over three years, VTI compounded at +20.62% per year against +11.35% for XBJA.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 10.0% for XBJA. 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 -25.4% for VTI and -17.4% for XBJA. 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

VTI charges 0.03% per year while XBJA charges 0.79%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $79 annually, a gap of $76 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, VTI currently yields 1.03% against 0.00% for XBJA.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of VTI and XBJA you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

VTIXBJA

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, VTI or XBJA?

VTI has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XBJA charges 0.79%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $76 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, VTI or XBJA?

Over the past year VTI returned +18.37% vs +11.22% for XBJA, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, VTI or XBJA?

VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 10.0% for XBJA. Worst drawdown: VTI -25.4% vs XBJA -17.4%.

Should I hold both VTI and XBJA?

VTI and XBJA 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.

Which pays a higher dividend, VTI or XBJA?

VTI yields 1.03% while XBJA yields 0.00%, so VTI currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is XBJA better than VTI?

VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.