VTI vs XSHQ
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF vs Invesco S&P SmallCap Quality ETF
Which is better, VTI or XSHQ?
Large Cap Blend against Small Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. XSHQ is less concentrated, with 22.5% 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 | VTI | XSHQ |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.29% |
| AUM | $666.9B | $297M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.03% | 1.18% |
| Holdings | 3,543 | 122 |
| YTD Return | +12.08%Best | +9.65% |
| 1Y Return | +16.31%Best | +6.64% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.83%Best | +9.99% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.89%Best | +6.70% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.2%Best | 19.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -35.0%Best | -38.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,537Best | $13,830 |
| Top 10 Weight | 33.3% | 22.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | May 24, 2001 | Apr 3, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 6, 2017 to Sep 14, 2026 (9.4 years).
VTI vs XSHQ 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 9.4 years both funds cover.
VTI vs XSHQ Performance
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US) and Invesco S&P SmallCap Quality ETF (XSHQ) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year VTI returned +16.31% while XSHQ returned +6.64%. Year to date, VTI is up 12.08% versus a gain of 9.65% for XSHQ.
Over three years, VTI compounded at +20.83% per year against +9.99% for XSHQ; over five years the annualized figures are +11.89% and +6.70% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +13.64% annualized vs +8.39%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XSHQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.1% compared with 16.2% 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 -35.0% for VTI and -38.3% for XSHQ. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
VTI charges 0.03% per year while XSHQ charges 0.29%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $29 annually, a gap of $26 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, VTI currently yields 1.03% against 1.18% for XSHQ.
Holdings Overlap
0.5% of VTI's money is in holdings XSHQ also owns. 96.0% of XSHQ's money is in holdings VTI also owns.
Most of XSHQ is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
114 positions in common, counted across the 3,463 positions we hold weights for in VTI and 118 in XSHQ, against full books of 3,543 and 122.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 3 positions for XSHQ that do not appear in our book for VTI (1.9% of the fund), and 1,106 for VTI that do not appear in XSHQ (97.0%).
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 VTI | Weight in XSHQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| PAYCPaycom Software Inc . | 0.01% | 3.65% | 3.64% |
| EATBrinker International, Inc. | 0.01% | 2.81% | 2.80% |
| AWIArmstrong World Industries Inc | 0.01% | 2.11% | 2.10% |
| DAVEDave Inc Common Stock Usd.0001 | 0.01% | 2.06% | 2.05% |
| LYFTLyft Inc. Class A | 0.01% | 2.03% | 2.02% |
| CORTCorcept Therapeutics Incorporated | 0.01% | 1.97% | 1.96% |
| PJTPjt Partners Inc | 0.01% | 1.95% | 1.94% |
| MCMoelis & Co_None_0 | 0.01% | 1.91% | 1.90% |
| MKTXMarketaxess Holdings Inc?.? | 0.01% | 1.86% | 1.85% |
| QRVOQorvo Inc_None_0 | 0.01% | 1.83% | 1.82% |
96.0% of XSHQ 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, VTI or XSHQ?
VTI has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XSHQ charges 0.29%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $26 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, VTI or XSHQ?
Over the past year VTI returned +16.31% vs +6.64% for XSHQ, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), VTI annualized +13.64% vs +8.39% for XSHQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, VTI or XSHQ?
XSHQ has been the more volatile fund at 19.1% annualized versus 16.2% for VTI. Worst drawdown: VTI -35.0% vs XSHQ -38.3%.
Should I hold both VTI and XSHQ?
VTI and XSHQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, 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 VTI and XSHQ?
96.0% of XSHQ's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 96.0% of XSHQ's is in holdings VTI also owns. They hold 114 positions in common, counted across the 3,463 positions we hold weights for in VTI and 118 in XSHQ.
Which pays a higher dividend, VTI or XSHQ?
VTI yields 1.03% while XSHQ yields 1.18%, so XSHQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XSHQ better than VTI?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. XSHQ is less concentrated, with 22.5% 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.