Table of Content

• Annual & Cumulative Returns
• Risk Metrics
• Dividend Yield & Growth
• Fees & Liquidity
• ETF Composition: Asset Classes
• Regional Allocation
• Sector Weights
• Top 10 Holdings
• Valuation & Growth Metrics
• Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

ETF Issuers & Investment Objective

Vanguard offers both funds, but they serve different purposes. VOO simply tracks the S&P 500, giving you the market's return at rock-bottom cost - just 0.03% annually. The fund weights each stock by market cap, so Apple, Microsoft and other giants dominate. With technology making up 35% of the portfolio, you're essentially betting on big tech's continued dominance.

VYM takes a different path, screening for companies that pay above-average dividends. The result is a portfolio yielding 2.44% - more than double VOO's 1.13%. You'll find more banks and insurance companies here (22% vs 13% in VOO) and less technology exposure. The fund trades at 16.3 times earnings versus VOO's 22.4, reflecting its tilt toward cheaper, more mature businesses. Both charge minimal fees and use the same indexing approach, but VYM costs twice as much at 0.06%.

Annual & Cumulative Returns

VOQ's growth edge is hard to miss: the fund's 15.7 percent annual gain over the past decade beats VYM's 12.3 percent by more than three percentage points a year, and the gap widens to almost eight points over the last three years. That difference, repeated for ten years, turns a $10,000 stake into roughly $42,800 for VOO versus $31,700 for VYM. The trade-off is income: VYM's 2.4 percent yield is double VOO's 1.1 percent, so investors who spent the dividends instead of reinvesting them saw the shortfall shrink to about 2.3 percent a year.

What the numbers don't show is temperament. VYM has lagged in every period except 2024's first quarter, yet its lower 16.3 P/E suggests it holds up better when growth stocks sell off. If you need cash now or want a smoother ride, the higher dividend helps. If you're building a portfolio you won't touch for years, the compounding power of VOO's extra three-percentage-point annual return is tough to ignore.

Risk Metrics

VYM's lower 1-year volatility of 9.32% versus VOO's 10.99% reflects its dividend-focused approach, which tends to cushion price swings during market turbulence. The gap narrows over three years, with VYM at 11.48% versus VOO's 11.96%, suggesting this smoothing effect becomes less pronounced over longer periods. What's striking is the Sharpe ratio difference: VOO's 1.4 is nearly double VYM's 0.71, meaning investors received significantly more return per unit of risk with the S&P 500 tracker.

For investors weighing these options, the numbers tell a clear story about risk-reward trade-offs. VYM offers modestly lower volatility, particularly in shorter timeframes, but this comes at the cost of risk-adjusted performance. The higher Sharpe ratio for VOO suggests that despite slightly more volatility, the additional risk has been better compensated. Your choice depends on whether you prioritize stability of returns (VYM) or optimal risk-adjusted growth (VOO).

Dividend Yield & Growth

VYM's 2.44% yield is more than double VOO's 1.13%, which translates to roughly $244 versus $113 in annual dividend income on a $10,000 investment. That gap exists because VYM specifically targets companies with above-average dividend payouts, while VOO simply owns the broader S&P 500 regardless of dividend policy.

The trade-off becomes clear when you look at total returns. VOO's 14.43% one-year performance beat VYM's 13.95% despite the lower yield, showing how high-dividend stocks often lag during strong market periods. Neither ETF offers monthly income - both pay quarterly like most Vanguard funds, so the yield difference is what really matters for income-focused investors.

Fees & Liquidity

VOO's 0.03% expense ratio means you pay just 30 cents annually per $1,000 invested, making it one of the cheapest ways to own the S&P 500. VYM costs twice as much at 0.06%, which still works out to only 60 cents per grand - hardly a deal-breaker, but the difference compounds over decades. Both trade millions of shares daily with tight bid-ask spreads, so you're not getting nickeled and dimed on entry or exit.

The fee gap matters more if you're investing large sums or holding for the very long term. On a $100,000 position over 20 years, that 0.03% difference adds up to about $1,200 in extra costs with VYM, assuming identical returns. Still, both ETFs cost far less than the average mutual fund, and either one beats paying an advisor 1% to pick individual stocks.

ETF Composition: Asset Classes

Both ETFs stick almost entirely to U.S. equities VOO parks 99.1% of its assets in domestic stocks while VYM holds 98.1%. The sliver left over is sprinkled into non-U.S. names (about half a percent for VOO, closer to 1.7% for VYM), a cash drag under 0.25%, and trace “other” positions that barely move the needle. In practical terms, neither fund gives you meaningful foreign exposure, so currency risk or overseas economic surprises won’t budge the portfolio much.

The tiny gap in domestic weight actually tilts the dividend story. VYM’s extra 1% allocated outside the U.S. comes from large overseas dividend payers that qualify for its yield screen, nudging the fund’s cash component slightly lower (0.12% vs 0.22%). For income-focused investors, that means a bit more of every dollar is working in equities, helping prop up the 2.4% yield without adding any noticeable international volatility. VOO holders, meanwhile, keep an extra 0.1% in cash minuscule, but enough to blunt a hair of upside in raging bull markets.

Regional Allocation

Both ETFs stick almost entirely to North American stocks, but the numbers reveal some interesting differences in how they treat international exposure. VOO keeps 99.5% of its holdings in North America, leaving just half a percent for companies based elsewhere. VYM casts a slightly wider net with 98.3% in North America, meaning it holds roughly three times more international exposure than VOO. That extra 1.2% might seem small, but it adds up when you're dealing with billions in assets.

The geographic spread tells a story about dividend hunting versus pure index tracking. VYM's international allocations show up in places you'd expect higher-yielding stocks - developed Europe gets 0.97% versus VOO's 0.38%, and the UK allocation jumps to 0.18% from VOO's barely-there 0.03%. These aren't massive differences, but they reflect how dividend-focused strategies naturally tilt toward markets with established dividend cultures. For investors, this means VYM offers a touch more geographic diversification, though both funds remain overwhelmingly US-focused at their core.

Sector Weights

VOO's sector mix mirrors the S&P 500's tech-heavy tilt, with more than a third of assets parked in technology stocks. That's nearly double VYM's 16.7% allocation, and the gap widens further in communications - VOO carries 10.9% versus VYM's modest 2.5%. This concentration explains much of the performance difference investors see between these funds, particularly during tech rallies when growth stocks lead markets.

The dividend-focused VYM tilts toward value sectors that actually pay meaningful yields. Financial services dominates at 22.1%, nearly double VOO's 13.0% weighting, while energy gets an 8.4% allocation compared to VOO's 2.8%. Consumer staples, utilities, and healthcare also get bigger slices in VYM, creating a more defensive posture that tends to hold up better when markets turn south. For investors choosing between them, it's really a question of whether you want the market's growth engine or its income generators.

Top 10 Holdings

VOO's top five holdings read like a who's who of mega-cap growth stocks, with NVIDIA claiming the top spot at 7.75% followed closely by Apple at 6.87%. These five companies alone account for roughly 28% of the entire fund, showing how the S&P 500's market-cap weighting creates heavy concentration in the biggest names. The dominance of tech giants isn't just a footnote here - it's the main story, with these companies driving both the fund's performance and its relatively high P/E ratio of 22.4.

VYM takes a completely different approach, as its largest holding Broadcom at 7.57% suggests a tilt toward established dividend payers rather than pure growth plays. You'll notice JPMorgan Chase and Exxon Mobil in the top five, reflecting the fund's preference for companies with strong cash flows that can sustain above-average dividends. The weightings are more evenly distributed too - no single position dominates like in VOO, which helps explain why VYM trades at a more modest 16.3 P/E ratio while offering that attractive 2.44% yield.

Valuation & Growth Metrics

VOO trades at 22.4 times earnings and 4.6 times book value, a clear premium to VYM’s 16.3 and 2.7 multiples. That gap mirrors the portfolios: the S&P 500 fund is loaded with tech names whose future cash flows get priced at a steeper multiple, while VYM’s dividend screen tilts it toward banks, consumer staples, and utilities that the market treats as slower-growth bond proxies.

The growth column shows what you’re paying for. VOO’s holdings have delivered 10.2 % annual earnings growth over the past five years and are projected to keep compounding at about 10.5 %; revenue has climbed 8 %. VYM’s earnings history is a much tamer 2.8 %, with forward expectations just under 9 % and sales growth barely above 5 %. In short, VOO’s higher valuation buys demonstrably faster expansion, while VYM’s lower price tags and higher 2.4 % yield offer a value tilt that tends to hold up better when multiples compress.

Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

Your choice comes down to what you want from your large-cap U.S. exposure. VOO gives you the full S&P 500 at half the cost (0.03% vs 0.06%) and rode the 2024 tech surge to a 14.4% one-year return, but you'll live with a slim 1.1% dividend. VYM swaps some of that growth for cash in hand: its 2.4% yield is double VOO's, it trades at a lower 16.3 P/E, and its 13.9% return still kept pace within half a percentage point. The sector mix tells the same story - VOO is 35% technology, VYM only 17%, instead leaning toward financials and healthcare.

If you're reinvesting for 10-plus years and don't need income, VOO's broader market slice and tiny fee are hard to beat. Prefer a quieter ride or want dividends you can spend without selling shares? VYM's value tilt and higher yield do the job, just accept you'll miss some of the tech-driven upside when growth races ahead. Either way, both are cheap, diversified, and Vanguard-backed - pick the profile that matches your spending plans, then leave it alone.

If you want to have look at other ETF comparisons, check out this: Fund Overlap Tool

Data sources: The data has been obtained from the ETF provider's website and ETF fact sheet.

Table of Content

• Annual & Cumulative Returns
• Risk Metrics
• Dividend Yield & Growth
• Fees & Liquidity
• ETF Composition: Asset Classes
• Regional Allocation
• Sector Weights
• Top 10 Holdings
• Valuation & Growth Metrics
• Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

ETF Issuers & Investment Objective

Both VYM and VOO come from Vanguard, so they share the same low-cost DNA, but they're built for different purposes. VYM tracks the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index, which means it screens the U.S. market for companies that pay above-average dividends, then weights them by market cap. The result is a portfolio that currently yields 2.44% - more than double VOO's 1.13% - and tilts toward slower-growing, cash-rich sectors like financials (22% of assets) and healthcare (13%). Think established insurers, regional banks, and drug makers that send shareholders regular checks.

VOO, on the other hand, simply owns the S&P 500 in its entirety. It's a "large-blend" fund because it holds both growth and value stocks in one package, with a 35% stake in tech giants like Apple and Microsoft. That growth exposure pushes the portfolio's average P/E to 22.4, well above VYM's 16.3, and explains why its dividend stream is lower - many of the fastest-expanding companies prefer to reinvest cash rather than pay it out. The trade-off shows up in total returns: over the past year VOO edged ahead 14.4% versus VYM's 14.0%, but the gap can flip quickly when value stocks are in favor.

Annual & Cumulative Returns

VYM's dividend focus hasn't translated to superior returns. The fund trailed VOO by nearly 8 percentage points annually over the past three years, with the gap widening to 3.4 points over five years. Even during this year's volatile markets, VYM's 2.91% YTD gain only modestly outpaced VOO's 1.07% - hardly the defensive outperformance income investors might expect.

The longer view tells the same story. VOO's 15.69% ten-year average leaves VYM's 12.28% in the dust, demonstrating that the S&P 500's growth orientation has consistently trumped high-dividend strategies. While VYM offers nearly double the yield at 2.44% versus 1.13%, that extra income hasn't compensated for the significant underperformance. Investors choosing between these funds face a clear trade-off: accept lower returns for higher current income with VYM, or sacrifice yield for superior growth potential with VOO.

Risk Metrics

VYM's value tilt delivered a smoother ride over the past twelve months, posting volatility of 9.32% against VOO's 10.99%. The gap narrows when you stretch the window to three years, but the dividend-heavy portfolio still edges out the S&P 500 tracker, 11.48% to 11.96%. Those extra few basis points of calm come largely from the fund's defensive sector mix and its 2.44% cash dividend, which cushions price swings when markets wobble.

The Sharpe ratio tells a different story. VOO's 1.4 reading over the last three years is double VYM's 0.71, meaning each unit of risk taken in the broad-market fund was rewarded with almost twice the excess return. In plain terms, VYM gave you less volatility, but it also gave you less compensation for whatever volatility remained. Investors who prize a quieter path and the higher income stream may gladly accept that trade-off; those seeking maximum risk-adjusted punch will tilt toward the S&P 500.

Dividend Yield & Growth

VYM's 2.44% yield is more than double VOO's 1.13%, which makes sense given its focus on companies that pay higher-than-average dividends. This 1.31 percentage point gap translates to real money - on a $100,000 investment, that's roughly $1,200 more in annual dividend income from VYM.

The trade-off shows up in the numbers. VYM's lower P/E of 16.3 versus VOO's 22.4 suggests investors pay less for each dollar of earnings in the dividend-focused fund. Yet VYM's 1-year return of 13.95% lagged VOO's 14.43%, illustrating how chasing yield can mean missing some growth. Neither ETF offers a clear payment frequency advantage since both distribute quarterly, so the yield difference remains the main consideration for income-focused investors.

Fees & Liquidity

VOO costs half as much to own as VYM: 3 basis points versus 6. On a $50,000 position that’s $15 a year versus $30 hardly a budget-buster, but the gap widens as the account grows. Both funds trade free at Vanguard and most major brokers, so commission drag is a non-issue for buy-and-hold investors. Spreads are consistently a penny or less on VOO because it prints over 50 million shares daily; VYM is still liquid, but you’ll occasionally see two-cent spreads in the first hour or after-hours, so market orders larger than a few hundred shares may benefit from a limit order.

The real cost difference shows up in the distribution yield. VYM’s 2.44% payout helps offset its higher fee, while VOO’s 1.13% yield means you’re effectively paying the expense ratio out of slower-dividend pocket. Over ten years the extra three basis points of VYM add up to roughly 0.3% of principal small potatoes compared with the underlying index performance, yet worth remembering if you’re debating whether to tilt toward dividends or stick with the broad market.

ETF Composition: Asset Classes

VYM and VOO both keep things simple: each parks more than 98% of its assets directly in U.S. common stocks, with only a token sleeve of foreign names and a few basis points left in cash for daily liquidity. The split is what you’d expect from plain-vanilla index trackers, yet the tiny gap VOO’s 99.1% versus VYM’s 98.1% domestic weight means the dividend-focused fund already has a touch less home-country purity, a reminder that chasing yield can pull you into the occasional Canadian pipeline or U.K. pharma ADR.

That one-percentage-point difference won’t move the volatility needle, but it does hint at the underlying philosophy. VOO owns the entire S&P 500 market-cap stack, so its 0.5% non-U.S. slice is mostly multinationals with overseas revenue. VYM’s 1.7% foreign allotment, while still small, reflects a screen that starts with dividends; if a high-payer happens to list abroad, it can slip in. For investors, the takeaway is practical: either fund gives you essentially a pure U.S. large-cap bet, just know that VYM’s yield hunt opens the door a crack wider to non-domestic names and the currency noise that can ride with them.

Regional Allocation

Both funds plant nearly every dollar stateside, yet VYM leaves a slightly larger crack in the door for overseas exposure. While VOO keeps 99.5% of its assets in North American companies, VYM trims that to 98.3%, freeing up about 1.7% for markets such as the U.K., developed Europe, and a sliver of emerging Asia. The difference is modest roughly $1.70 per $100 but it shows up in the weightings: VYM’s U.K. stake is five times larger than VOO’s 0.03%, and its combined Europe and Asia emerging allocations edge toward 1%, whereas VOO barely registers there.

For most portfolios this gap won’t move the needle; currency swings and foreign earnings are still minimal headwinds. Still, if you like the idea of a dividend tilt with a whisper of international diversification baked in, VYM offers it without forcing you to buy a separate ex-U.S. fund. VOO, by contrast, gives you a purer play on the domestic economy and the S&P 500’s familiar tech-heavy lineup. Pick the one whose slight overseas footprint, or lack thereof, better matches the rest of your holdings.

Sector Weights

VYM tilts heavily toward dividend-rich corners of the market, so you get a 22% slice in financial services and a combined 32% in the defensive trio of healthcare, consumer staples and utilities. Tech still shows up at 17%, but it’s a supporting actor rather than the star. In VOO, technology dominates at 35%, nearly matching VYM’s weight in financials, energy and healthcare combined. That single-sector bet is the main driver of the S&P 500’s recent returns, and it shows up plainly in the allocation gap between the two funds.

The knock-on effects are just as stark. Energy gets an 8% weight in VYM triple VOO’s 3% while communication services and real estate barely register in the dividend fund. If you hold VOO you’re basically along for the Big-Tech ride; if you hold VYM you’re collecting a 2.4% yield and trading some upside for a buffer when growth stocks sell off. Neither mix is “right,” but the sector spread explains why VYM’s P/E sits six points lower and why its performance can diverge sharply in any given year.

Top 10 Holdings

VYM's top holdings read like a who's who of dividend stalwarts, with Broadcom leading at 7.57% - a tech company that happens to pay generous dividends. The rest of the top five spreads across financial services (JPMorgan at 4.15%), energy (Exxon Mobil at 2.41%), and defensive consumer stocks (Johnson & Johnson and Walmart each around 2.3%). This diversity reflects the fund's mandate to find companies with above-average dividend yields, not necessarily the market's biggest names.

VOO's concentration tells a different story entirely. NVIDIA dominates at 7.75%, followed by the familiar tech triumvirate of Apple (6.87%) and Microsoft (6.15%). Add Amazon and Alphabet, and you've got nearly 28% of the fund in just five mega-cap tech stocks. This weighting mirrors the S&P 500's current composition, where technology's influence has ballooned to 35% of the index. The contrast is stark: VYM's largest holding represents less than 8% of the fund, while VOO's top five holdings make up over a quarter of its assets.

Valuation & Growth Metrics

VYM trades at 16.3 times earnings and 2.7 times book value, roughly a quarter below the multiples carried by VOO at 22.4 and 4.6 respectively. That discount is the clearest evidence of what you’re buying: a basket of large-cap value stocks that the market has already marked down. The lower price tags also show up on the top line VYM’s price-to-sales ratio of 1.9 sits well under VOO’s 3.2, reflecting the heavier weight in slower-growing financials and consumer staples rather than the tech-heavy S&P 500.

Growth expectations follow the same pattern. Long-term earnings growth for VYM holdings is pegged at 9.1%, a full point and a half below VOO’s 10.5%, and the historical earnings pace trails by an even wider seven-point gap. Sales growth shows the same tilt: 5.2% for VYM versus 8.0% for VOO. In short, you’re accepting slower expansion in exchange for the cheaper entry price and the higher 2.4% dividend yield that comes with it.

Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

VYM makes sense when you want the market to pay you while you wait. Its 2.44% yield is more than double VOO's 1.13%, and the portfolio's 16.3 P/E suggests you're buying companies at lower starting prices. The trade-off shows up in performance: VYM lagged the S&P 500 by 0.48% over the past year, and its 22% financial-services weight can drag when rates move against banks.

VOO keeps things simple. You get the whole market in one shot - tech giants and all - which explains both the 22.4 P/E and the 14.43% one-year return. The 0.03% expense ratio is half of VYM's already-low fee, so more of every dividend dollar stays in your pocket. If you don't need the income now and prefer growth without picking sectors, VOO does the job with less fuss.

If you want to have look at other ETF comparisons, check out this: Fund Overlap Tool

Data sources: The data has been obtained from the ETF provider's website and ETF fact sheet.

Table of Content

• Annual & Cumulative Returns
• Risk Metrics
• Dividend Yield & Growth
• Fees & Liquidity
• ETF Composition: Asset Classes
• Regional Allocation
• Sector Weights
• Top 10 Holdings
• Valuation & Growth Metrics
• Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

ETF Issuers & Investment Objective

Two different issuers, two different approaches to large-cap growth. Vanguard's VUG tracks the CRSP US Large Cap Growth Index, casting a wide net across growth stocks while keeping costs minimal at 0.04%. The fund holds roughly 260 stocks, making it genuinely diversified across large U.S. companies with growth characteristics. Invesco's QQQ takes a different path, tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index with its 100 largest non-financial companies listed on the NASDAQ exchange. This creates a more concentrated portfolio that happens to lean heavily toward technology and innovation-focused firms.

The practical difference shows up in what you actually own. VUG's broader approach means you'll get exposure to growth stocks from across the entire large-cap universe, including companies listed on the NYSE and other exchanges. QQQ's NASDAQ-only focus means you're essentially betting on the tech-heavy ecosystem of one exchange, though it has performed well recently with a 17.5% one-year return versus VUG's 14%. Both ETFs end up with similar sector weights - technology dominates at roughly 52% for VUG and 51% for QQQ - but QQQ's concentration in fewer holdings creates more single-stock risk if any of its top positions stumble.

Annual & Cumulative Returns

QQQ has delivered higher returns across every time period we measured, though the margin varies. The gap is widest over ten years, where QQQ's 20.51% annualized return beats VUG by 2.37 percentage points - a difference that compounds significantly over time. Even during this year's volatility, QQQ managed a positive 1.37% while VUG slipped 0.89%.

The performance gap between these two growth ETFs has remained remarkably consistent, never varying more than 2.5% annually across any period. This suggests both funds capture similar growth trends, with QQQ's concentrated NASDAQ-100 approach providing slightly more upside. For investors choosing between them, the question becomes whether QQQ's higher returns justify its 0.16% higher expense ratio - a trade-off that becomes less significant over longer holding periods, especially in tax-advantaged accounts where the compounding difference matters most.

Risk Metrics

QQQ nudges ahead with slightly lower volatility at 15.64% versus VUG's 16.02% over the past year. Extend the window to three years and the gap narrows to just eight basis points, but the pattern holds. Both funds ride the same growth-wave, yet QQQ's NASDAQ-100 composition feels a touch steadier.

Sharpe ratios echo that steadiness: QQQ's 1.61 edges past VUG's 1.59, meaning investors picked up a whisker more return per unit of risk. The difference is small enough that trading costs or timing could erase it, but it suggests QQQ has delivered its extra 3.5 percentage points of one-year performance without asking shareholders to stomach noticeably wilder swings.

Dividend Yield & Growth

Neither VUG nor QQQ will impress investors who are shopping for yield: VUG’s 0.41% and QQQ’s 0.46% both sit well below the 1.6% you’d get from a plain-vanilla S&P 500 fund, and the five-dollar difference on every $10,000 invested is practically noise. What the numbers do signal is that these portfolios are stuffed with companies that prefer buybacks and reinvestment to mailing out cash exactly what you’d expect when Apple, Microsoft and Nvidia sit at the top of each holdings list.

The one practical wrinkle is timing. Invesco pays QQQ’s modest dividend every quarter, while Vanguard rolls VUG’s payments into an annual December distribution. If you like smoothing out the income calendar or you’re budgeting around quarterly receipts, QQQ wins by default. Otherwise, treat both yields as rounding errors and focus on the growth story; the dividend column is unlikely to sway the final decision.

Fees & Liquidity

VUG's 0.04% expense ratio means you'll pay just 40 cents annually on a $1,000 investment, while QQQ's 0.20% runs five times higher at $2 per thousand. That 16 basis point gap might seem trivial, but it compounds meaningfully over time - on a $50,000 position held for 15 years, the difference adds up to roughly $1,200 in fees alone.

Both ETFs trade millions of shares daily with tight bid-ask spreads, so transaction costs won't meaningfully impact most investors. The real question is whether QQQ's tech-heavy NASDAQ-100 focus justifies its higher price tag compared with VUG's broader growth universe. Neither fund will drain your returns through fee friction, but VUG clearly wins on pure cost efficiency.

ETF Composition: Asset Classes

Both funds keep things simple: VUG parks 99.6% of its money in U.S. equities while QQQ holds 96.3% here at home. That three-percentage-point gap might look trivial, but it means QQQ leaves room for 3.6% in foreign names usually the overseas shares of NASDAQ-listed giants like Taiwan Semiconductor or ASML. VUG’s foreign slice is essentially a rounding error at 0.15%, so investors who want nothing but American growth stocks get a slightly “purer” package.

The cash drag is equally microscopic either way VUG keeps 0.16% on the sidelines, QQQ about half that so your money is working almost all the time. In practice, the difference shows up in breadth, not location: VUG owns roughly 250 large-cap growth names, QQQ just 100 of the biggest NASDAQ stocks. If you like the idea of a wider U.S. growth net with a whisper of international tech, QQQ’s 3.6% foreign stake does the trick. Prefer to stay almost entirely domestic and own the whole growth spectrum? VUG’s 99.6% U.S. weighting tilts you that way without any extra effort.

Regional Allocation

VUG keeps things simple with 100% North American exposure, making it a pure play on U.S. growth stocks. The fund's domestic focus aligns with its goal of tracking large-cap American companies, which explains why you'll find familiar names like Apple and Microsoft dominating its holdings. This concentration means currency risk isn't a factor, but you're also missing out on any international diversification benefits.

QQQ takes a slightly different approach, keeping 97.6% of its assets in North America while sprinkling small amounts across developed Europe, the UK, and emerging markets. The 2.4% international allocation might seem insignificant, but it adds companies like Baidu and MercadoLibre that trade on U.S. exchanges while generating most revenue abroad. This tiny global footprint won't meaningfully impact returns, yet it does give QQQ holders a sliver of geographic diversity that VUG completely avoids.

Sector Weights

Both funds lean heavily on tech stocks, but VUG's 52.5% technology weight edges out QQQ's 51.3%. The real differences show up outside Silicon Valley. QQQ holds nearly 8% in consumer defensive stocks (think Pepsi and Costco) while VUG barely touches the space at 1.3%. VUG also keeps 5.4% in financial services - a sector QQQ largely ignores at just 0.3%. Healthcare exposure splits too: VUG carries 5.6% versus QQQ's 5.0%.

These sector tilts matter more than they might seem. VUG's financial stake means you'll own some banks and payment processors that QQQ skips entirely. Meanwhile, QQQ's consumer defensive allocation provides a cushion during market downturns that VUG simply doesn't have. If you're choosing between them, ask yourself whether you want that extra financial exposure (VUG) or prefer the stability of consumer staples (QQQ). The tech weights are close enough that your decision really hinges on these smaller sector bets.

Top 10 Holdings

VUG leans heavily on its top three positions, with NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft soaking up more than 35% of the portfolio. That 12.7% slug of NVIDIA is the single biggest bet either fund makes. QQQ holds the same names, yet caps each one at a mid-single-digit weight; its largest line item is NVIDIA at 8.6%, still three points lighter than VUG’s stake. The result is a smoother cap profile for QQQ, while VUG’s investor gets a purer play on the mega-cap winners.

Below the top trio, the lists diverge. Alphabet’s A shares sit at 5.4% of VUG but don’t crack QQQ’s top five, and Tesla slips into QQQ’s roster at 3.8% while missing from VUG’s headline names. Both funds keep roughly half their assets in tech, so sector risk is similar; the real choice is whether you want the more concentrated, Apple-Microsoft-NVIDIA barbell that VUG offers, or the slightly broader, Nasdaq-100 slice that QQQ delivers.

Valuation & Growth Metrics

VUG trades at a noticeable premium with a 29.7 P/E versus QQQ's 25.1, and the gap widens on price-to-book: 9.6 times book for VUG, 6.4 for QQQ. The same pattern shows up in price-to-sales 7.4 for VUG, 5.0 for QQQ so every dollar of revenue costs you roughly 50% more in the Vanguard fund. What you're paying extra for is faster growth: VUG's long-term earnings growth is clocked at 12.2% a year, a full point above QQQ's 10.8%, and the historical earnings burst of 24% dwarfs QQQ's 16%. Sales growth tells the same story 12.5% to 8.3% so the higher multiples aren't coming from nowhere; they're attached to companies that have been expanding the top and bottom lines more quickly.

Still, QQQ gives you most of that tech-heavy exposure at a lower entry price, and the five-point P/E discount can cushion the blow if sentiment turns. VUG's richer ratios mean it needs to keep beating growth expectations just to stay even, while QQQ has a bit more room for disappointment. Neither valuation looks cheap in absolute terms, so the choice really hinges on whether you think the extra growth VUG promises is worth paying up for, or if you'd rather pocket the valuation cushion and slightly higher dividend that QQQ offers right now.

Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

If you're after pure growth with a bargain-basement fee, VUG's 0.04% expense ratio is hard to beat you keep almost every dollar of return. The trade-off is that its 13.99% one-year gain lagged QQQ's 17.5% pop, and the portfolio's 29.7 P/E suggests you're paying a steeper price for each dollar of earnings. QQQ, on the other hand, delivers the punchier recent performance and a slightly higher 0.46% yield, but the 0.20% fee is five times VUG's and the Nasdaq-100 focus leaves you tethered to a narrower bench of names.

Bottom line: buy VUG if low cost and broad large-cap growth exposure are the priority; accept QQQ if you want the Nasdaq's extra octane and don't mind the higher price tag and concentration risk. Either way, both ETFs swim in the same tech-heavy pool together they allocate more than half their assets to technology so don't expect much diversification if you pair them.

If you want to have look at other ETF comparisons, check out this: Fund Overlap Tool

Data sources: The data has been obtained from the ETF provider's website and ETF fact sheet.

Table of Content

• Annual & Cumulative Returns
• Risk Metrics
• Dividend Yield & Growth
• Fees & Liquidity
• ETF Composition: Asset Classes
• Regional Allocation
• Sector Weights
• Top 10 Holdings
• Valuation & Growth Metrics
• Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

ETF Issuers & Investment Objective

Vanguard offers both funds, but their investment approaches sit at opposite ends of the spectrum. VTI tracks the entire U.S. stock market - every large, mid, small and micro-cap stock you can buy. At 0.03% annually, it's one of the cheapest ways to own a piece of American business. The fund spreads your money across nearly 4,000 companies, with technology making up 33% and the next biggest sector just 13%.

VUG takes a different path. It only owns large growth companies - think Apple, Microsoft, Amazon - and charges 0.04% for this focused approach. Technology dominates here at 52% of holdings, with communication services adding another 16%. The result is a portfolio of about 250 stocks with a 29.7 P/E ratio, significantly higher than VTI's 21.5. This concentration means when growth stocks rally, VUG typically soars. When they fall, it drops harder. VTI's broad diversification smooths out those swings, though it won't capture the full upside of growth rallies either.

Your choice depends on what you want from your U.S. stock exposure. VTI gives you the whole market in one fund - growth, value, large and small companies all together. VUG bets specifically on large companies that investors expect to grow faster than average. Neither approach is inherently better, but they serve different purposes in a portfolio.

Annual & Cumulative Returns

VUG's growth focus has delivered superior long-term results, particularly over the past decade where it outpaced VTI by nearly 3 percentage points annually. The difference becomes even more pronounced over three years, with VUG's 28.58% return significantly exceeding VTI's 20.81%. This reflects how growth stocks, especially the technology giants that comprise over half of VUG's holdings, have dominated market returns during this period.

Yet the recent past tells a different story. VTI has eked out small advantages in the year-to-date and one-year periods, suggesting growth stocks may be losing some momentum. The narrow 0.08 percentage point difference over one year shows how tightly matched these funds can be in shorter timeframes. For investors, this pattern suggests VUG works best as a long-term holding that requires patience through growth stock underperformance, while VTI offers more consistent returns across various market cycles with less dramatic swings between leadership styles.

Risk Metrics

VUG's 16% one-year volatility sits noticeably above VTI's 11.4%, and this gap holds across longer periods. The growth fund's heavier tech weighting (52.5% vs 33.2%) explains most of the difference - when sentiment shifts, those high-multiple stocks swing harder than the broad market's financial and industrial names that VTI owns.

What's interesting is that VUG's higher volatility hasn't hurt risk-adjusted returns. Its three-year Sharpe ratio of 1.59 beats VTI's 1.29, meaning investors collected more return per unit of risk despite the bumpier ride. The trade-off is clear: VTI gives you a smoother path with less drama, while VUG demands stronger nerves but has compensated patient holders for the extra turbulence.

Dividend Yield & Growth

VTI's 1.12% yield isn't exactly generous, but it's nearly triple VUG's 0.41%. That gap reflects the underlying companies: VTI owns everything from utilities to banks, sectors that actually share profits with shareholders. VUG's growth-focused portfolio behaves differently - most of its holdings reinvest earnings rather than pay dividends, which explains why 52.5% sits in technology companies that typically favor buybacks over distributions.

Neither fund will generate meaningful income, so your choice depends on priorities. If you want some cash flow while maintaining broad market exposure, VTI delivers modest quarterly payments. VUG investors essentially trade away current income for potential future growth - a reasonable bet if you're comfortable with a tech-heavy portfolio and don't need the money now. Both pay dividends (VUG quarterly too, despite the data gap), but neither yield approaches what you'd find in dedicated dividend funds.

Fees & Liquidity

VTI's 0.03% expense ratio saves you one basis point over VUG's 0.04%, which adds up to roughly a dollar difference per year on a $10,000 position. Both funds trade millions of shares daily with penny-wide spreads, so your real cost isn't the management fee - it's how long you plan to hold. The gap widens slightly when you factor in VTI's 1.12% dividend yield against VUG's 0.41%, since the growth fund's lower distributions mean less drag from taxes in taxable accounts.

For most investors, the fee difference falls into the rounding-error category. A 401(k) with $50,000 split between these funds would save about $5 annually by choosing VTI, less than a single lunch. The bigger consideration is whether you want the market-weighted simplicity of total-market exposure or the concentrated growth bet that comes with VUG's 52% technology weighting. Pick the fund that matches your strategy; don't let the basis point sway the decision.

ETF Composition: Asset Classes

VTI spreads your money across nearly the entire U.S. market just shy of 99 percent in domestic stocks while sprinkling a half-percent abroad and holding a sliver of cash for daily fund operations. That microscopic 0.4 percent cash stake, plus a touch of “other,” keeps tracking tight without dragging on returns. VUG looks almost identical at first glance: 99.6 percent in U.S. equities and even less overseas. The difference shows up in the cash drawer; VUG keeps only 0.16 percent on the sidelines, a reflection of its narrower, large-cap focus that turns the portfolio over less often.

For investors, the takeaway is subtle but useful. Both funds keep foreign exposure below one percent, so currency swings won’t move the needle. VTI’s slightly higher cash and “other” slice is a by-product of holding small-caps, which require a bit more liquidity management. Unless you’re running a very tight asset-allocation model, the gap is too small to sway the decision; pick the fund for the stocks it owns, not for the few basis points sitting in money-market residuals.

Regional Allocation

VTI keeps virtually everything at home. Over 99% of its holdings trade in North America, with the remaining half-percent scattered across developed Europe, the UK, and a few emerging Asian listings that happen to list as ADRs in New York. That tiny foreign footprint is a rounding error; you're still getting a fund that behaves like a pure U.S. benchmark.

VUG dispenses with the fiction entirely: the portfolio is booked as 100% North American. Because it chases large-cap growth names, and the fastest-growing U.S. giants tend to list domestically, there's simply no need to reach for London or Hong Kong share classes. For investors, the difference is mostly cosmetic both ETFs will rise and fall with the dollar and domestic sentiment but if you care about even a sliver of international listing diversification, VTI technically offers it while VUG does not.

Sector Weights

VUG's technology allocation jumps off the page at 52.5% - that's nearly double VTI's already hefty 33.2% tech weighting. The concentration doesn't stop there. Add in communication services at 16.5% and you're looking at almost 70% of VUG parked in just two sectors. Meanwhile, VTI spreads things thinner. Financial services gets 13.3%, consumer cyclicals 10.5%, and healthcare weighs in at 10.3%. Nothing approaches tech's dominance.

The numbers tell a clear story about what each fund is trying to do. VUG bets big on growth sectors while virtually ignoring traditional industries - energy sits at 0.3%, basic materials 0.7%. VTI keeps a toe in everything. Even unloved sectors like utilities and real estate get 2-3% each. This explains why VTI trades at 21.5x earnings while VUG commands 29.7x. You're paying for concentrated growth bets with VUG, or getting a slice of the entire market with VTI.

Top 10 Holdings

The same five tech giants sit at the top of both funds, yet VUG's growth mandate doubles their weightings. NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft each claim roughly twice the footprint in VUG (12.73%, 11.88%, 10.63%) compared with VTI's more modest 6.56%, 6.12%, 5.48%. That 53% combined concentration in just three names shows how a growth screen naturally funnels money toward the market's biggest winners, while VTI's broader brief keeps any single stock below 7%.

This concentration gap explains why VUG's technology allocation swells to 52.5% versus VTI's still-hefty 33.2%. A portfolio anchored in VUG will therefore rise and fall with the fortunes of a handful of mega-caps far more than one built on VTI. The trade-off is straightforward: VUG offers purer exposure to momentum-driven names, VTI provides a more balanced cushion when leadership rotates away from the giants.

Valuation & Growth Metrics

VUG trades at a 38% premium to the broad market, with its 29.7 P/E towering over VTI's 21.5. The gap widens further on price-to-book: VUG's 9.6 multiple means you're paying more than double what VTI investors shell out for each dollar of net assets. These richer valuations reflect the market's willingness to pay up for VUG's tech-heavy lineup - over half the portfolio sits in technology names versus 33% for VTI.

Yet the growth story gets murky beyond headline numbers. While VUG companies grew historical earnings at a blistering 24% clip, their sales actually shrank 12.5% as VTI holdings managed positive (if modest) revenue expansion. Long-term earnings projections favor VUG at 12.2% versus 10.6%, but that modest edge may not justify the valuation stretch. For investors, the choice boils down to whether you believe today's premium multiples will hold as growth inevitably normalizes across market cycles.

Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

VTI gives you the whole market in one package. At 0.03% in fees, you're paying practically nothing to own 4,000 stocks across every sector and size. The 1.12% dividend yield puts real cash in your pocket every quarter, something growth investors often forget about until markets turn rocky.

VUG takes the opposite approach - it's a pure bet on large companies that keep expanding faster than the economy. With 52% in tech and a P/E of 29.7, you're paying up for that growth, but you get zero exposure to value stocks or smaller companies that might outperform when the market rotates. The choice really comes down to whether you want to own everything or just the expensive parts of the market that have worked lately.

If you want to have look at other ETF comparisons, check out this: Fund Overlap Tool

Data sources: The data has been obtained from the ETF provider's website and ETF fact sheet.

Table of Content

• Annual & Cumulative Returns
• Risk Metrics
• Dividend Yield & Growth
• Fees & Liquidity
• ETF Composition: Asset Classes
• Regional Allocation
• Sector Weights
• Top 10 Holdings
• Valuation & Growth Metrics
• Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

ETF Issuers & Investment Objective

Vanguard's VTI throws the widest possible net across American stocks, tracking essentially the entire investable market from Apple down to micro-caps you've never heard of. The fund's 0.03% expense ratio means you pay just 30 cents annually per $1,000 invested, making it practically free to own the whole market. This breadth shows up in sector weightings too - technology dominates at 33.2%, nearly double SCHD's exposure, while financial services and consumer cyclicals round out the top three at 13.3% and 10.5% respectively.

Schwab's SCHD takes a completely different approach, hunting only for companies that reliably mail dividend checks. The ETF's 3.82% yield dwarfs VTI's 1.12%, but this income focus means owning different kinds of companies. Energy stocks lead at 20.6% - more than triple VTI's allocation - followed by consumer defensive (18.2%) and healthcare (15.5%). At 0.06% annually, SCHD costs twice VTI's fee but still qualifies as dirt-cheap. The trade-off becomes clear in valuations: SCHD's holdings trade at 13.7 times earnings versus VTI's 21.5, reflecting its tilt toward mature, slower-growing businesses that return cash to shareholders rather than reinvesting for growth.

Annual & Cumulative Returns

The numbers tell a clear story about two very different investment approaches. VTI's 14.07% one-year return nearly doubles SCHD's 7.8%, and this outperformance pattern holds across most time periods. Over the past decade, VTI's 15.29% annual return beats SCHD's 12.81% by a solid margin. Yet 2024 has flipped the script - SCHD's 6.23% year-to-date gain trounces VTI's modest 1.58%.

These divergent paths reflect what's under the hood. VTI's tech-heavy portfolio (33.2% allocation) rode the growth wave during the long bull market, while SCHD's value-focused dividend stocks lagged behind. The catch? SCHD's 3.82% dividend yield offers real income that VTI's 1.12% can't match. Investors choosing between them face a classic trade-off: higher total returns with VTI versus steadier income and current market resilience with SCHD.

Risk Metrics

Both ETFs display nearly identical volatility patterns, with VTI at 11.38% and SCHD at 11.45% over the past year - a difference so small you'd barely feel it in your portfolio. The three-year numbers tell the same story, hovering around 12.6% for both funds. This might surprise investors who expect dividend-focused stocks to be noticeably smoother rides, but SCHD's concentration in defensive sectors like consumer staples and healthcare doesn't translate to meaningfully lower swings.

The Sharpe ratio reveals the real distinction between these approaches. VTI's 1.29 ratio shows it's delivered substantially better risk-adjusted returns than SCHD's 0.2 over the past three years. In practical terms, VTI investors have been compensated with roughly six times more return per unit of risk taken. This gap reflects the challenging period for value stocks and dividend payers - while SCHD's 3.82% yield looks attractive on paper, the total return story favors VTI's broader market approach.

Dividend Yield & Growth

VTI's 1.12% yield reflects its job as a total-market tracker - most of its 3,900 holdings pay little or nothing, so the blended payout lands well below the S&P 500's own yield. SCHD, built only for dividends, starts with a 3.82% yield that's more than triple VTI's and arrives every quarter from the 100 large-cap names that have raised payments for at least ten straight years. The trade-off is built right into the numbers: the market ETF gives you the market's income, while the dividend ETF squeezes out extra cash by overweighting mature, cash-rich sectors such as energy pipelines and consumer staples.

What this means in practice is that $100,000 parked in SCHD throws off about $2,700 more annual income than the same stake in VTI before taxes. If you're reinvesting anyway, that gap can compound in SCHD's favor, though you'll miss the 33% tech allocation that has driven VTI's recent 14% return. Neither approach is "wrong" - it's simply a question of whether you want the market's full growth potential with a modest income kicker, or a fatter cheque today from companies that have already proven they can mail them through recessions.

Fees & Liquidity

VTI's 0.03% expense ratio is about as low as it gets in the ETF world - you're paying three cents annually for every hundred dollars invested. SCHD costs twice that at 0.06%, which still rounds to essentially nothing in dollar terms. On a $10,000 position, that's three bucks versus six bucks per year. The difference won't move the needle for most investors, though if you're running a seven-figure portfolio, you might notice.

Both funds trade millions of shares daily, so bid-ask spreads stay razor-thin and you won't get dinged on entry or exit. Neither charges trading commissions at major brokerages anymore. The real cost consideration is opportunity: VTI's tech-heavy allocation has delivered 14% over the past year while SCHD's dividend focus returned 7.8%. Whether that lower fee justifies potentially lower returns depends on whether you're after broad market exposure or steady income.

ETF Composition: Asset Classes

VTI keeps almost nothing in cash - just 0.41% - which makes sense since it's designed to track the entire U.S. market as closely as possible. The fund owns 98.8% U.S. stocks with a tiny 0.6% international allocation, essentially giving you pure American equity exposure. SCHD follows a similar pattern with 99.1% in U.S. stocks and even less cash at 0.09%, showing both funds stay fully invested rather than trying to time markets.

The real difference isn't in these broad asset class splits - both are almost entirely domestic stock funds. What matters is how they deploy that 99% equity allocation. VTI spreads it across thousands of companies from Apple down to micro-caps, while SCHD concentrates in about 100 dividend-paying stocks. Same asset class, completely different risk profiles hiding behind nearly identical percentages.

Regional Allocation

Both ETFs stick almost exclusively to North American stocks, with VTI at 99.5% and SCHD at 99.2%. That hair-thin difference comes from SCHD's slight tilt toward UK listings (0.8% vs VTI's 0.04%), mostly oil majors and consumer staples that meet its dividend screens. Otherwise, neither fund ventures more than a few basis points outside the U.S. market - VTI's largest non-North American weight is 0.25% in developed Europe, while SCHD essentially ignores Asia and emerging markets entirely.

For investors, this means regional diversification isn't a differentiator here. You're getting pure U.S. exposure either way, with any overseas holdings rounding errors that won't move the needle. The real geographic story lies in how each fund weights within America: VTI owns the entire market cap spectrum including tiny micro-caps, while SCHD's dividend requirement naturally skews it toward established large-caps, though both remain domestic plays through and through.

Sector Weights

VTI's sector mix mirrors the broader market's tech-heavy tilt, with technology claiming a full third of assets at 33.2%. This dwarfs SCHD's modest 9.4% tech allocation, which instead loads up on energy at 20.6% versus VTI's slim 2.9% slice. The dividend-focused SCHD also maintains defensive positions that VTI barely touches - consumer staples make up 18.2% of SCHD but just 4.5% of VTI, while healthcare claims 15.5% compared to VTI's 10.3%.

These sector bets explain the performance gap. VTI's concentration in growth-oriented tech stocks drives higher returns in bull markets but leaves it exposed when sentiment shifts. SCHD's tilt toward energy and consumer staples provides ballast during volatility, though this diversification comes at the cost of missing the tech sector's explosive growth. Neither approach is inherently superior - VTI offers pure market exposure while SCHD trades some upside for dividend stability and sector balance.

Top 10 Holdings

VTI's top five holdings read like a who's who of mega-cap tech, with NVIDIA leading at 6.56% followed by Apple (6.12%) and Microsoft (5.48%). These three positions alone represent nearly 18% of the entire fund, which tracks the total U.S. market. The concentration isn't accidental - the fund simply mirrors what exists in the broader market, where tech giants have grown to dominate benchmarks.

SCHD takes a completely different approach, favoring established dividend payers across varied sectors. Its largest holding, defense contractor Lockheed Martin at 4.69%, barely exceeds the fifth-largest position in VTI. Chevron's 4.15% weighting reflects the fund's 20.6% energy allocation, while healthcare names like Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck round out the top five. This results in a portfolio where no single stock wields outsized influence, and the 3.82% dividend yield provides income that VTI's 1.12% simply can't match.

Valuation & Growth Metrics

VTI trades at 21.5 times earnings and 4.1 times book value, reflecting its heavy tilt toward growth names in tech and consumer cyclicals. Those multiples are 56% and 52% higher than SCHD’s 13.7 P/E and 2.7 P/B, so you’re paying a clear premium for the market-wide basket. The flip side is that VTI’s holdings are still expanding profits at roughly 10.6% annually, double SCHD’s 5.6%, which helps justify the richer price tag if earnings momentum continues.

SCHD’s value orientation shows up everywhere: half the price-to-sales ratio (1.4 vs 2.9) and a dividend yield that’s triple VTI’s 1.1%. The trade-off is growth - SCHD’s historical earnings have actually shrunk 1.7% a year while VTI’s rose 8.7%, and recent sales growth is modest 4.3% versus a 39% decline for the total market (largely driven by last year’s tech rout). In short, VTI gives you higher current valuations but faster expected growth, while SCHD offers cheaper entry points and income now with slower runway ahead.

Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

VTI gives you the whole market in one fund - every sector, every size company, all for just 0.03% annually. That broad exposure helped it deliver a 14.07% return over the past year, though you'll only see about 1.12% in dividend income along the way. It's the set-it-and-forget-it choice that matches the overall market's performance.

SCHD takes a different path, focusing on companies that actually pay you to own them through a 3.82% dividend yield. The trade-off becomes clear in the numbers - it returned 7.80% this past year, lagging VTI by over six percentage points. But you're getting cheaper valuations at a 13.73 P/E ratio and steadier sectors like consumer staples and healthcare that tend to hold up better when markets get rocky. If you need portfolio income or want less volatility, SCHD makes sense. Otherwise, VTI's hard to beat for pure growth and simplicity.

If you want to have look at other ETF comparisons, check out this: Fund Overlap Tool

Data sources: The data has been obtained from the ETF provider's website and ETF fact sheet.

Table of Content

• Annual & Cumulative Returns
• Risk Metrics
• Dividend Yield & Growth
• Fees & Liquidity
• ETF Composition: Asset Classes
• Regional Allocation
• Sector Weights
• Top 10 Holdings
• Valuation & Growth Metrics
• Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

ETF Issuers & Investment Objective

Vanguard's VYM casts a wide net across the large-cap universe, simply scooping up every stock whose trailing dividend yield lands in the top half of the market and then weighting them by market value. The portfolio replicates the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index, which explains why roughly one-fifth of assets sit in financials and another 17% in technology sectors whose large constituents push them to the top of a cap-weighted lineup. Schwab's SCHD, on the other hand, starts with a dividend requirement but adds a quality screen: only companies that have paid dividends for at least ten straight years and score well on cash-flow-to-debt, return on equity, and dividend-growth metrics make the cut. The result is a more concentrated basket; energy (21%) and consumer staples (18%) currently dominate because those groups now offer both the yield Schwab wants and the balance-sheet strength it demands.

Both funds charge the same 0.06% expense ratio and land in the large-value box, yet their construction philosophies diverge quickly once you look under the hood. VYM's P/E of 16.3 sits a notch above SCHD's 13.7, a reflection of its heavier tech tilt and looser quality filter. Yield works the opposite way: SCHD's 3.8% payout is a full 1.4 percentage points above VYM's 2.4%, even though it owns fewer names. That gap, plus the sector skews, means the ETFs often move out of step over the past year VYM's 14% return has doubled SCHD's 7.8%, but the Schwab product has historically held up better when markets sour. Investors choosing between them are really deciding whether they want a broad, low-maintenance dividend harvest (VYM) or a higher-yield, quality-tilted approach that may lag in rallies but offers a bit more cushion in downturns (SCHD).

Annual & Cumulative Returns

VYM has sprinted ahead lately - up 13.95% over the past year versus SCHD's 7.8%. The gap widens further when you stretch the timeline: VYM's three-year annualized return of 13.69% leaves SCHD's 8.5% in the dust. These differences add up. An investor who put $10,000 in VYM five years ago would have roughly $1,800 more than the same investment in SCHD, despite both funds costing just 0.06% annually.

Yet the story flips when you zoom out further. SCHD's 12.81% ten-year annualized return edges past VYM's 12.28%, and its 2024 showing (6.23% YTD) suggests it might be finding its stride again. The recent underperformance stems largely from SCHD's 20.6% energy allocation - that sector's volatility has dragged on returns while VYM's 22% financial services weighting benefited from rising rates. Neither fund consistently dominates; they just win in different market cycles.

Risk Metrics

VYM has shown steadier footing across both timeframes, with one-year volatility running 9.32% and a three-year reading of 11.48%. SCHD’s corresponding figures 11.45% and 12.61% are higher, meaning its daily price swings have been about one-fifth wider. That extra bump in variance hasn’t been rewarded lately: the fund’s three-year Sharpe ratio sits at just 0.2, well below VYM’s 0.7, so investors in SCHD accepted more turbulence per unit of excess return. The gap suggests VYM’s large financial and tech positions have provided a smoother ride than SCHD’s heavier tilt toward energy and consumer staples, sectors that have faced sharper earnings revisions and commodity-linked mood swings.

None of this guarantees the pattern will persist, but the numbers do flag a temperament difference worth matching to your own. If smaller draw-downs help you stay invested, VYM’s lower volatility and better risk-adjusted record offer a slight edge. On the other hand, SCHD’s higher yield and cheaper valuation (13.7 vs 16.3 P/E) may appeal to buyers who can stomach the extra swings and want more income up front. Choose the profile that lets you hold on through the next market squall rather than the one that looks best in the rear-view mirror.

Dividend Yield & Growth

SCHD's 3.82% yield towers over VYM's 2.44%, handing investors roughly 56% more cash income on every dollar invested. That gap is real money: park $100k in SCHD and you'll collect about $3,820 in dividends this year versus $2,440 from VYM. The trade-off is that higher yields often come from companies paying out a larger share of earnings, which can leave less room for reinvestment and future growth.

Both funds spread payments across the calendar, but neither follows the monthly-check schedule some retirees crave. What matters is durability: SCHD's underlying index screens for companies that have not just paid but consistently raised dividends for at least ten years, while VYM simply grabs the higher-yield half of the large-cap universe. In practice, this means SCHD's extra yield is backed by firms like Texas Instruments and Home Depot that have grown payouts through multiple recessions, whereas VYM's lower yield includes steady names but also some value traps whose dividends look high only because their stock prices have fallen.

Fees & Liquidity

Both funds charge the same rock-bottom 0.06% expense ratio, so on a $10,000 position you're out just six bucks a year basically a rounding error. That parity means the fee column won't sway your decision; instead, watch bid-ask spreads and average daily volume if you trade smaller lots or use market orders. VYM's $3-plus billion in assets and years of secondary-market history keep its spread reliably at a penny, while SCHD, though smaller, still prints tight quotes most sessions.

The real cost difference shows up in how each basket behaves after you own it. VYM's 2.44% yield means you're getting a quarterly cash stream that slightly dilutes the internal compounding, whereas SCHD's 3.82% yield puts more cash back in your pocket nice if you reinvest manually, but the higher payout can also enlarge the tax drag in a taxable account. Same fee, different cash-flow rhythm; pick the one whose distribution schedule matches how you like to handle dividends.

ETF Composition: Asset Classes

Both ETFs keep things simple with near-identical portfolios: VYM has 98.1% in U.S. equities while SCHD sits at 99.1%. The tiny residual shows up as fractional cash, a handful of foreign listings, and tracking-error buffers. For practical purposes you’re buying a pure domestic large-cap basket either way; the 0.9 percentage-point gap between the two is too small to move the needle on currency or geographic risk.

What matters more is how that domestic slice is spread across sectors, and here the funds diverge. VYM leans toward financials and tech two areas that can swing with rates and growth expectations while SCHD’s heaviest weight is energy, a group that can spike when oil rallies but also drag when it doesn’t. If you already own broad-market index funds loaded with tech megacaps, VYM can leave you doubly exposed; if you’re light on commodities or consumer staples, SCHD offers a bit more balance.

Regional Allocation

Both ETFs stay almost entirely in North America, but SCHD takes this home-country bias further with 99.2% parked in U.S. and Canadian stocks versus VYM’s still-heavy 98.3%. That extra 0.8 percentage-point tilt means SCHD investors have even less cushion if the dollar weakens or overseas markets sprint ahead. VYM sprinkles the remaining 1.7% across developed Europe, the U.K. and a sliver of emerging Asia and Latin America, enough to pick up a handful of ADRs like Unilever or Taiwan Semiconductor that happen to pay fat dividends.

For anyone worried about currency risk, the difference is basically rounding error neither fund offers meaningful foreign exposure. Yet if you want every last basis point of yield sourced from the highest-paying U.S. names, SCHD’s 99% domestic weight delivers that purity. VYM’s micro-allocation abroad won’t move the needle on performance, but it does leave the door open to occasional non-dollar income that SCHD effectively shuts.

Sector Weights

VYM leans heavily on financial services at 22.1% more than double SCHD's 9.4% weight while also parking 16.7% in technology giants like Microsoft and Apple. That pairing gives the portfolio a growth tilt that partly explains why it trades at 16.3× earnings. Energy barely moves the needle at 8.4%, and the fund keeps a classic “dividend” sector, utilities, at a modest 5.8%.

SCHD, by contrast, has flipped the script: energy pipelines and refiners command 20.6% of assets, consumer-staples mainstays such as Pepsi and Colgate another 18.2%, and healthcare a further 15.5%. The result is a lower 13.7× valuation and a payout that reaches 3.8%, but it also means less exposure to the tech names that have driven recent market gains. For investors, the choice is really between VYM’s bank-and-tech barbell or SCHD’s energy-and-soap trade-off, each carrying its own macro sensitivity.

Top 10 Holdings

VYM's top holdings read like a who's who of dividend stalwarts, with Broadcom commanding a hefty 7.57% position - nearly double the weight of SCHD's largest holding. The fund spreads its bets more evenly too, with JPMorgan at 4.15% and the remaining top five each sitting between 2-2.5%. This lighter concentration means no single stock can sink the ship, though it also caps the upside when one really takes off.

SCHD takes a different tack, keeping its largest positions within a tight 4-4.7% band. You'll find defense contractor Lockheed Martin at the top with 4.69%, followed closely by energy giant Chevron. The fund's methodology clearly favors companies with consistent dividend track records and solid fundamentals - notice how Texas Instruments makes the cut despite being a smaller tech name. For investors, this means SCHD offers more balanced exposure without any single stock dominating returns, though the 20.6% energy allocation (versus VYM's 2.41% Exxon weighting) makes it more sensitive to oil price swings.

Valuation & Growth Metrics

SCHD trades at a noticeably lower valuation across every metric in the table. At 13.7× forward earnings and 1.4× sales it’s priced about 15% below VYM’s 16.3× and 1.9×, while the two funds’ price-to-book figures are almost twins (2.67 vs 2.69). The discount shows up because SCHD’s selection screen keeps only companies that pass cash-flow, dividend-safety and balance-sheet tests; the resulting basket tilts toward out-of-favor sectors such as energy and consumer staples, and the market simply isn’t paying up for them right now.

Growth tells the opposite story. VYM’s holdings have delivered 9% long-term earnings growth and 5% sales growth, numbers that outpace SCHD’s 5.6% and 4.3%, and VYM’s historical earnings tally is still in the black (2.8%) while SCHD’s sits slightly negative (-1.7%). What this means: VYM gives you more of the broad-market cash-flow momentum at a “fair” price, whereas SCHD offers a valuation cushion in exchange for accepting slower-growing, more mature businesses. Neither profile is inherently better; it comes down to whether you want the cheaper entry point or the higher growth trajectory.

Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

If you're chasing yield above all else, SCHD's 3.82% dividend dwarfs VYM's 2.44%, and the Schwab portfolio's lower 13.7 P/E suggests you're paying less for every dollar of earnings. Yet that income comes with a trade-off: SCHD's 7.8% one-year gain trails VYM's 13.95% by more than six percentage points, a reminder that higher dividends can coincide with slower price appreciation.

Look under the hood and the sector splits tell the rest of the story. VYM leans toward financials and tech growth-oriented areas that helped power last year's stronger return while SCHD's heavy energy and consumer-defensive weighting delivers the steadier cash flow but less upside when markets rally. Both cost the same 0.06% and sit in the large-value box, so the decision really comes down to whether you want the higher current income (SCHD) or the more growth-tilted cash stream (VYM).

If you want to have look at other ETF comparisons, check out this: Fund Overlap Tool

Data sources: The data has been obtained from the ETF provider's website and ETF fact sheet.

Table of Content

• Annual & Cumulative Returns
• Risk Metrics
• Dividend Yield & Growth
• Fees & Liquidity
• ETF Composition: Asset Classes
• Regional Allocation
• Sector Weights
• Top 10 Holdings
• Valuation & Growth Metrics
• Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

ETF Issuers & Investment Objective

Charles Schwab's SCHD takes a straightforward approach: own quality U.S. companies that actually pay their dividends. The fund tracks an index that screens for consistent dividend payers with solid fundamentals, then weights them by how strong their balance sheets look relative to peers. You'll find value-oriented sectors here - energy stocks make up over 20% of the portfolio, followed by consumer staples at 18%. The 0.06% expense ratio means Schwab only pockets six cents for every hundred you invest, which helps explain why SCHD has become the go-to choice for dividend-focused investors.

JPMorgan's JEPI plays a different game entirely. Instead of just buying dividend stocks, the fund sells call options against its equity holdings through equity-linked notes. This options strategy generates that eye-catching 8.25% yield - more than double SCHD's 3.82% - but it caps the fund's upside when markets rally hard. The portfolio looks more like the S&P 500, with nearly 19% in technology names and a higher P/E ratio of 21 versus SCHD's 13.7. You're paying JPMorgan 0.35% annually for this active management, which is cheaper than most covered-call funds but still nearly six times SCHD's fee.

Annual & Cumulative Returns

The performance gap between these two income strategies tells a clear story. SCHD's 6.23% year-to-date return nearly triples JEPI's 1.99%, and the dividend-focused fund maintains this edge across every time period except three years. What jumps out is the consistency - SCHD's 12.81% ten-year average (compared to JEPI's nonexistent track record) suggests the strategy has weathered multiple market cycles. The 3.6 percentage point difference in their 1-year returns might seem modest, but it represents real money when you're talking about income-focused portfolios.

JEPI's options-writing approach shows up in the numbers. The fund's 10.45% three-year return beats SCHD by nearly two full percentage points, likely from capturing options premiums during calmer markets. Yet this advantage evaporates over five years, where both funds essentially tie at 9.66% and 9.68%. The pattern hints that JEPI's complexity helps in stable conditions but doesn't provide lasting outperformance. For investors choosing between them, it comes down to preference: SCHD offers simpler dividend investing with a longer proven record, while JEPI provides higher current income but with less history and more moving parts.

Risk Metrics

JEPI's volatility sits remarkably low at 6.25% over the past year, barely half of SCHD's 11.45%. That gap holds across the longer window too - JEPI's three-year volatility of 7.42% against SCHD's 12.61% shows the option-writing strategy genuinely dampens price swings. The Sharpe ratios reveal why this matters: JEPI earned 0.69 units of return per unit of risk while SCHD managed only 0.20, meaning JEPI investors got paid better for the uncertainty they accepted.

Yet these numbers come with trade-offs. SCHD's higher volatility reflects its full exposure to stock market moves - when dividend stocks rally, shareholders capture the upside. JEPI's call-option overlay caps those gains in exchange for premium income, which explains both the lower volatility and the muted one-year return of 7.26% despite an 8.25% yield. For investors who can stomach 12% volatility, SCHD offers the purer equity play. Those prioritizing stability might accept JEPI's return profile for the smoother ride.

Dividend Yield & Growth

JEPI's 8.25% yield is more than double SCHD's 3.82%, and that gap is what most income shoppers notice first. The extra four-and-a-half percentage points of cash flow come from a deliberate trade-off: JEPI sells call options against its equity holdings, collecting premiums that are passed along as dividends. Those premiums juice the payout, but they also cap the fund's upside in strong rallies, something the raw yield figure doesn't show.

SCHD's lower yield is simply the market's dividend; the fund just screens for companies that grow it reliably. No options overlays, no monthly bonus checks, just the cash that firms like Amgen, Chevron and PepsiCo already mail to shareholders. What you give up in current income you keep in compounding potential, because every dollar not paid out today stays invested and, history suggests, tends to grow faster than the S&P 500 over full cycles. Pick your preference: JEPI pays you now, SCHD pays you later.

Fees & Liquidity

The fee gap between these two couldn't be starker. SCHD charges just 0.06% annually, meaning you'll pay $6 on every $10,000 invested. JEPI's 0.35% expense ratio runs nearly six times higher at $35 per $10,000. That $29 difference might seem trivial until you consider it compounds year after year, especially if you're building a long-term position.

What you're really paying for with JEPI is active management and its options strategy, which requires more hands-on portfolio adjustments than SCHD's straightforward dividend-stock approach. The higher fee essentially buys you that hefty 8.25% yield, though remember that yield comes from both dividends and options premiums, not just stock appreciation. SCHD's rock-bottom costs make it ideal for buy-and-hold investors who want pure dividend exposure without the complexity premium.

ETF Composition: Asset Classes

SCHD keeps things simple with a near-pure domestic focus, parking 99.1% of assets in U.S. equities and leaving only token amounts in cash or overseas names. That single-market bet lets the portfolio hew tightly to its large-value mandate and keeps currency swings out of the equation. JEPI, by contrast, keeps 16.5% of its assets outside direct U.S. stock exposure 1.4% sits in cash and another 1.4% in non-U.S. names, while the rest backs the ELN overlay that generates its extra income. The cash and derivatives sleeve is what powers the fund’s 8.25% yield, but it also means shareholders are less tethered to the market’s upside and carry counter-party risk inside those option structures.

For investors, the difference is more than a rounding error. SCHD’s 99% equity weight means every dollar participates fully in dividend-paying U.S. companies, which explains both its lower 3.82% yield and its slightly higher 12-month return of 7.80%. JEPI’s 83.5% direct stock stake leaves a chunk of assets earning option premiums instead of stock appreciation, producing a juicier distribution but capping some upside and adding complexity. If you want straight equity exposure with a value tilt, SCHD’s allocation delivers it cleanly; if you’re willing to trade some market participation for monthly income and a layer of derivatives, JEPI’s mixed-bag structure is the price of admission.

Regional Allocation

Both ETFs keep their money close to home, with SCHD allocating 99.2% to North America and JEPI right behind at 98.4%. SCHD's tiny 0.8% overseas slice is scattered across UK and Latin American stocks, while JEPI's 1.6% foreign weighting sits entirely in developed European markets. For dividend-focused investors, this means you're getting almost pure U.S. exposure with either fund, though the slight geographic tilt reflects their different approaches to generating income.

The minimal international exposure explains why both funds tend to move in lockstep with U.S. market sentiment rather than benefiting from overseas diversification when foreign markets outperform. SCHD's dividend screening process naturally favors domestic companies with long payout histories, while JEPI's options strategy is built around S&P 500 stocks that happen to be U.S.-based. Neither fund will help much if you're looking to hedge against a weak dollar or tap into faster-growing emerging markets.

Sector Weights

SCHD leans hard into old-economy cash cows: one-fifth of the portfolio sits in energy pipelines and refiners, another 18 % is parked in consumer-staples giants that make the everyday items people buy without thinking. Add healthcare’s 15 % slice and you have more than half the fund in three defensive groups that tend to keep sending dividends even when GDP sneezes. The trade-off is visible in the single-digit weights for tech (9 %) and financials (9 %), leaving the portfolio light on the sector that has driven most of the market’s gains over the past decade.

JEPI flips that script. Technology clocks in at 19 %, nearly double SCHD’s share, while energy is trimmed to just 2 % and consumer staples drop to 8 %. The result is a basket that looks a lot more like the modern S&P 500, only with a 6 % utilities allocation and a 5 % real-estate sleeve that SCHD barely touches. For income investors, the takeaway is straightforward: SCHD’s sector mix is built to cushion volatility and protect the dividend stream, whereas JEPI’s broader, growth-tilted spread aims to keep pace with the index while still churning out its eye-catching 8 % yield.

Top 10 Holdings

SCHD's top five holdings make up a chunky 21% of the portfolio, with Lockheed Martin leading at 4.7% and the rest clustered just above 4%. That concentration in dividend stalwarts like Chevron and Bristol-Myers Squibb shows the fund's bias toward cash-rich companies trading at reasonable prices. Each position carries real weight here - when these stocks move, you'll feel it in your returns.

JEPI takes a completely different approach. Its largest holding, Analog Devices, commands just 1.7% of assets, and even mega-caps like Alphabet barely crack 1.6%. This extreme diversification stems from the fund's options strategy - it needs broad market exposure to hedge its covered calls, so no single stock can dominate. The result is a portfolio where individual stock risk gets diluted across hundreds of names, though you'll sacrifice the pure dividend focus that gives SCHD its value tilt.

Valuation & Growth Metrics

SCHD trades at a noticeable discount across every valuation metric - its 13.7 P/E and 2.7 price-to-book sit well below JEPI's 21.1 and 4.3 respectively. That's what happens when you build a portfolio around beaten-up value names like energy stocks and consumer staples. The catch? Those cheaper holdings grew earnings at just 5.6% long-term while shrinking 1.7% over the past five years. You're paying less because the market expects less.

JEPI's higher 21 P/E reflects its tech-heavy portfolio and stronger growth profile - 8.7% long-term earnings growth and 11% historical growth tell the story. The 3.2 price-to-sales ratio doubles SCHD's, but that premium bought significantly faster expansion. Neither approach is inherently better; SCHD offers a value play with steady dividends while JEPI provides growth exposure at a richer price. Your choice depends on whether you want cheaper, slower-growing companies or faster growers at a premium.

Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

If you’re after yield with a side of growth, SCHD’s 3.8% payout and 0.06% fee give you a cheap, straightforward way to own cash-rich value stocks that have actually raised their dividends for years. The trade-off is you’ll ride the usual equity swings; last year’s 7.8% return came with full market beta and a portfolio tilted toward energy and consumer staples.

JEPI’s 8.3% yield looks twice as juicy, but that income is manufactured by selling call options on the S&P 500, so expect most of the upside to be called away in strong rallies and a 0.35% expense ratio eating a bigger hole in the distribution. Pick SCHD when you want dividend growth and lower fees, choose JEPI when you need the higher cash flow today and are willing to accept a cap on gains and a tech-heavier, derivative-wrapped basket.

If you want to have look at other ETF comparisons, check out this: Fund Overlap Tool

Data sources: The data has been obtained from the ETF provider's website and ETF fact sheet.

Table of Content

• Annual & Cumulative Returns
• Risk Metrics
• Dividend Yield & Growth
• Fees & Liquidity
• ETF Composition: Asset Classes
• Regional Allocation
• Sector Weights
• Top 10 Holdings
• Valuation & Growth Metrics
• Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

ETF Issuers & Investment Objective

Both VUG and VTI come from Vanguard's low-cost indexing stable, but they chase different slices of the market. VUG zeroes in on large-cap growth names, which explains why more than half its portfolio sits in technology and why the fund trades at 29.7 times earnings. That growth focus also shows up in the paltry 0.41% yield - these companies prefer to reinvest cash rather than mail checks. VTI, meanwhile, owns the entire U.S. stock market - everything from Apple down to micro-caps traded on regional exchanges - so its 21.5 P/E looks more like the broad market's average and its 1.12% yield reflects the inclusion of dividend-paying value stocks.

The sector weights tell the story: VTI's tech allocation drops to 33% because it has to own banks, utilities, and small-caps too, while VUG's 52.5% tech weighting plus 16.5% in communication services means nearly seven of every ten dollars ride on growth-oriented industries. Both funds cost practically nothing - four basis points for VUG, three for VTI - so the real choice is whether you want pure large-cap growth exposure or a single-fund portfolio that covers the whole U.S. market cap spectrum.

Annual & Cumulative Returns

Growth investing has its moments, and the past decade shows it. VUG's 18.14% annual return over ten years leaves VTI's 15.29% in the dust - that's roughly 2.8 extra percentage points per year, which compounds into real money. The three-year window is even more dramatic, with VUG clocking 28.58% versus VTI's 20.81%. These numbers reflect a period when mega-cap tech names (over half of VUG's portfolio) consistently outran the broader market.

But the picture gets messier up close. VTI actually edged out VUG by 0.08 percentage points over the latest year, and it's ahead year-to-date by about 2.5 points. This back-and-forth illustrates the trade-off: VUG delivers higher long-term returns when growth stocks are in favor, but it also carries more volatility and can lag when market leadership rotates. The 10-year gap of nearly 3% annually is substantial, yet investors need to stomach periods like 2022 when growth stocks cratered. Your choice depends on whether you want the smoother ride of total-market exposure or you're willing to accept VUG's sector concentration for the chance at higher long-term gains.

Risk Metrics

Growth stocks live up to their volatile reputation. VUG’s 16% annual swing is four points higher than VTI’s 11-12%, and the gap stays almost as wide over three years. That extra bump reflects a portfolio stuffed with high-beta tech names; when sentiment shifts, those companies overshoot in both directions. VTI’s broader 4,000-stock basket simply waters down the drama.

What investors get for the ride is a sharper risk-adjusted payoff. VUG’s Sharpe ratio of 1.59 beats VTI’s 1.29, meaning each unit of volatility has translated into about 23% more excess return during the past three years. Whether that trade-off feels worthwhile depends on stomach: holders willing to endure 40% deeper drawdowns have been compensated, while those who prefer to sleep through the night can accept the milder path and still capture most of the market’s reward.

Dividend Yield & Growth

VUG's 0.41% yield reflects its growth focus - the portfolio holds companies that prefer reinvesting cash over paying dividends. A tech-heavy 52.5% allocation naturally produces lower yields since most tech firms prioritize expansion and R&D. VTI's broader market exposure nearly triples this income, delivering 1.12% through quarterly payments that include dividend-paying value stocks and smaller companies.

The difference becomes meaningful at scale. On a $100,000 investment, VTI generates $1,120 annually versus VUG's $410 - a $710 gap that compounds over time. Growth investors accept this trade-off for potentially higher capital appreciation, though both funds delivered similar 14% returns this year. Neither yield is particularly attractive for income-focused strategies, but VTI's modest payments provide some cash flow without sacrificing much growth potential.

Fees & Liquidity

Both ETFs cost practically nothing to own, but VTI edges out VUG by one basis point: you're paying 3¢ versus 4¢ per $100 invested. On a $10,000 position that difference works out to one dollar a year. In real-world terms the gap is meaningless unless you're parking seven-figure sums in the fund, and even then trading spreads will dwarf the expense differential.

What can matter is how easily you can move in and out. VTI trades about 3½ million shares daily, VUG roughly a third of that. The tighter market in VTI keeps bid/ask spreads a penny or two narrower, so if you rebalance often or use large dollar amounts the total cost tilts a hair further toward VTI. For the typical buy-and-hold investor, though, the liquidity of either fund is more than adequate; choose based on the portfolio role you want, not on the microscopic fee gap.

ETF Composition: Asset Classes

VUG keeps things simple: nearly 99.6% of every dollar sits in U.S. common stocks, with only a rounding-error sliver in foreign names or cash. VTI is almost as domestic, yet its 98.8% U.S. weight leaves a touch more room about 0.6% for the ADRs and foreign listings that slip into the total-market basket. Both funds hold a pinch of cash (0.16% vs 0.41%), just enough to handle daily creations and redemptions, so you’re effectively getting full equity exposure with either choice.

What this means on the ground is that currency risk and overseas volatility are virtually non-issues for both portfolios; the difference is rounding, not philosophy. If you already own international ETFs or want a purer large-cap growth bet, VUG’s razor-thin 0.15% non-U.S. stake keeps overlap minimal. VTI’s slightly wider 0.6% foreign sprinkling won’t move the needle, but it does mirror the true composition of the U.S. marketplace, tiny foreign listings and all.

Regional Allocation

Both funds keep their money close to home. VUG parks 100% of its assets in North American stocks, which means every dollar chases U.S. growth companies. VTI is only slightly less domestic; 99.5% sits in North America and the sliver that’s left about 0.5% is scattered across the U.K., developed Europe, developed Asia, and a pinch of emerging markets. That half-percent foreign weight is so small it won’t move the needle; currency swings or overseas earnings surprises barely register.

For investors, this means neither ETF offers built-in international diversification. If you buy VUG you’re making a pure bet on large-cap U.S. growth, while VTI simply widens the bet to include mid-, small-, and micro-cap U.S. names. The geographic overlap is nearly complete, so the real choice is whether you want the sector concentration that comes with VUG’s growth filter or the broader, more balanced market slice that VTI delivers.

Sector Weights

VUG's sector tilt is impossible to miss. Over half the fund sits in technology stocks (52.5%), with communication services adding another 16.5%. That's nearly 70% of your money parked in two sectors. The rest gets thin slices - financial services at just 5.4%, healthcare barely 5.6%, and energy a rounding error at 0.3%.

VTI spreads things around more evenly. Technology still leads at 33.2%, but financial services claims a solid 13.3% and healthcare gets 10.3%. Every sector gets some representation, including utilities at 2.2% and real estate at 2.3% - both absent from VUG's top allocations. This broader mix means VTI won't surge as dramatically when tech rallies, but it won't crater as hard when growth stocks fall out of favor either.

Top 10 Holdings

The concentration gap jumps off the page: VUG’s top five names eat up 45% of the portfolio, while the same stocks claim just 24% of VTI. Put simply, if you buy VUG you’re getting a double-digit slug of NVIDIA (12.7%) and nearly another 12% in Apple weights that push the fund toward a handful of mega-cap growers. VTI still holds those same bellwethers, but at roughly half the dose, leaving far more room for the other 3,700-plus stocks that rarely make headlines.

That skew shows up in the sector mix too. Technology supplies just over half of VUG’s market value, so when sentiment toward big tech sours the whole fund feels it. VTI’s 33% tech weight is nothing to sneeze at, yet the presence of banks, industrials, and tiny caps underneath cushions the blow. In practice, VUG offers a purer bet on the market’s high-flyers, while VTI gives you the same names in moderation and spreads the rest of your money across everything from regional banks to micro-cap manufacturers.

Valuation & Growth Metrics

VUG trades at nearly 30 times earnings versus VTI's more modest 21.5 multiple, and the gap widens further when you look at book value - investors pay 9.6 times book for VUG compared with just 4.1 for the total market fund. These richer valuations reflect VUG's growth focus: the fund has delivered 24% historical earnings growth against VTI's 8.7%, while long-term earnings growth estimates favor VUG at 12.2% versus 10.6%.

The sales growth numbers tell an interesting story. VUG's holdings grew revenue by 12.5% while VTI shows a -39% figure, though this likely reflects the broader fund's inclusion of smaller companies and value stocks that suffered during recent economic turbulence. For investors, this means VUG offers exposure to faster-growing companies at premium prices, while VTI provides market-wide diversification at more reasonable valuations. Choose VUG if you're comfortable paying up for growth, or VTI if you prefer a more balanced approach across all market segments.

Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

If you're already tilted toward growth stocks or want to amplify tech exposure, VUG gives you that concentrated bet at a still-cheap 0.04% fee. Just remember you're paying 29.7x earnings and accepting a skinny 0.41% yield, so the ride will feel every bump in sentiment toward the mega-caps that dominate its 52% tech weighting.

For most investors, VTI's 14.1% one-year gain arrived with a milder 21.5x valuation and a 1.1% dividend cushion, all by simply owning the whole U.S. market at a 0.03% expense ratio. Unless you have a strong conviction that large growth will keep outperforming, the broad basket approach of VTI is the easier position to hold through the next cycle.

If you want to have look at other ETF comparisons, check out this: Fund Overlap Tool

Data sources: The data has been obtained from the ETF provider's website and ETF fact sheet.

Table of Content

• Annual & Cumulative Returns
• Risk Metrics
• Dividend Yield & Growth
• Fees & Liquidity
• ETF Composition: Asset Classes
• Regional Allocation
• Sector Weights
• Top 10 Holdings
• Valuation & Growth Metrics
• Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

ETF Issuers & Investment Objective

Invesco runs QQQ as a tracking vehicle for the NASDAQ-100, which means you’re buying the 100 largest non-financial stocks listed on that exchange; the portfolio is re-balanced whenever the index changes, and the result is a tech-heavy basket that currently parks 51.3 % of assets in technology names and charges 0.20 % a year. Vanguard’s VUG follows the CRSP U.S. Large Cap Growth Index instead, a broader benchmark that still leans toward fast-growing companies but pulls from the entire NYSE and NASDAQ universe; the sector mix ends up almost identical (52.5 % tech) yet the fee is barely four basis points, one-fifth the cost of QQQ.

The issuer difference shows up in how each fund is run. Invesco uses a unit-investment trust structure that can’t lend shares or reinvest dividends, so cash sits idle and the tracking error can widen; Vanguard uses a plain-vanilla open-end fund that can lend securities and sweep every penny back into the index, which partly explains why VUG’s 0.41 % yield is only five basis points below QQQ’s despite the lower fee. For investors, the trade-off is simple: QQQ gives you the pure NASDAQ-100 experience with a slightly higher price tag, while VUG delivers a similar growth tilt for almost nothing and wraps it in Vanguard’s patented share-class efficiency.

Annual & Cumulative Returns

QQQ has consistently outperformed VUG across every major time period, with the gap widening the longer you stretch the timeline. The three-year stretch shows the narrowest margin at just 1.36 percentage points, but that difference balloons to 2.37 points over a decade. This year's numbers tell a stark story: QQQ sits 2.26 points ahead while VUG remains underwater, suggesting the Nasdaq-100's tech-heavy composition has better weathered 2024's market crosswinds.

The performance edge comes at a cost - literally. QQQ charges five times more in fees at 0.20% versus VUG's razor-thin 0.04% expense ratio. Whether that premium is worth paying depends on your conviction that tech megacaps will keep delivering. VUG offers nearly identical sector exposure (52.5% tech vs QQQ's 51.3%) but casts a wider net beyond the Nasdaq exchange, which could provide some cushion if tech dominance fades. For investors comfortable paying extra for historical outperformance, QQQ's track record speaks loudly. Those prioritizing costs and broader diversification might find VUG's steady-if-slightly-lower returns perfectly acceptable.

Risk Metrics

QQQ and VUG walk almost the same risk tightrope. Over the past three years, QQQ’s annualized volatility has been 15.56%, a hair below VUG’s 15.64%, and the one-year numbers show the same pattern QQQ 15.64%, VUG 16.02%. In plain terms, you would have lost or gained about 15-16 cents on every dollar in either fund on a typical day. The Sharpe ratio tells the same story: QQQ edges out 1.61 versus 1.59, meaning each unit of volatility has delivered fractionally more excess return, but the gap is small enough that a single rough quarter could flip the ranking.

For anyone choosing between the two, this similarity is the takeaway. Both ETFs are dominated by the same mega-cap growth names Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia so they rise and fall on the same headlines. QQQ’s slightly lower volatility and marginally higher Sharpe ratio don’t create a different risk profile; they’re more like rounding errors. Pick one or the other based on cost, tracking preference, or portfolio fit, not because one promises a smoother ride.

Dividend Yield & Growth

QQQ's 0.46% yield edges out VUG's 0.41%, though both are practically rounding errors for growth-focused portfolios. The five-hundredths of a percentage point difference translates to just $5 extra per year on a $10,000 investment. What matters more is that neither ETF prioritizes dividend income - these yields exist because the underlying companies occasionally distribute cash, not because the funds seek dividend-paying stocks.

The quarterly payments from QQQ provide slightly more regular cash flow than VUG's distribution schedule (which varies), but this barely registers for most investors. Both funds pay so little that you'd need substantial positions for the dividend frequency to matter for budgeting purposes. If you're investing for growth, treat these dividends as incidental - they're simply what happens when Apple or Microsoft decides to share some profits, not a source of meaningful income.

Fees & Liquidity

QQQ charges 0.20% a year, five times the 0.04% VUG levies. Put real money on it: every $10,000 held means $20 goes to Invesco versus $4 to Vanguard. That 16-basis-point gap sounds small, but on a $100,000 position held for ten years the difference is roughly $1,600, assuming both trackers match their indexes. If you trade frequently the spread narrows a bit, yet buy-and-hold investors keep paying the freight every single year.

Both ETFs trade millions of shares daily, so bid-ask spreads sit tight usually a penny or two. QQQ’s longer track record and retail name recognition give it a slight edge in depth, yet VUG’s flow is more than ample for anything short of multi-million-dollar blocks. In short, VUG is the cheaper taxi to large-cap growth; QQQ costs more but delivers the Nasdaq-100’s tech-heavy ride.

ETF Composition: Asset Classes

QQQ and VUG both plant nearly their entire portfolio in U.S. large-cap growth names, but QQQ leaves a 3.6% sliver overseas while VUG keeps 99.6% at home. That modest foreign sleeve in QQQ comes from the Nasdaq-100’s habit of including a handful of non-U.S. listings mostly dual-listed tech giants whereas VUG’s CRSP benchmark is stricter about domestic incorporation. Practically, this means QQQ investors get a whisper of currency exposure and a touch more diversification, while VUG offers a purer play on American balance sheets.

The cash stakes are microscopic for both under 0.2% so neither fund is dragging idle dollars. What matters more is how that geographic tilt interacts with the sector bets already shown: QQQ’s 3.6% non-U.S. share sits mainly in the same tech-heavy names that drive its 51% sector weight, amplifying the single-theme risk. VUG’s 0.2% overseas slice is too small to move the dial, leaving the portfolio’s risk profile driven almost entirely by its 52% tech allocation and the slightly richer 29.7 P/E that comes with it.

Regional Allocation

QQQ's geographic footprint shows a distinct tilt toward U.S. companies, with 97.6% of holdings based in North America. That remaining 2.4% exposure to international markets might seem minor, but it's notably absent from VUG, which maintains a pure 100% domestic allocation. The NASDAQ-100's composition naturally pulls in a handful of foreign companies, particularly from Europe and emerging markets, while VUG's broader large-cap growth index sticks strictly to American firms.

For investors, this difference means QQQ offers a touch of international diversification within a U.S.-focused fund, though the impact on returns will likely be minimal given the small percentages involved. The 0.58% allocation to Latin America and emerging Asia in QQQ could provide a slight hedge against dollar strength, but don't expect meaningful geographic balance - both funds remain overwhelmingly tied to the U.S. economy and market cycles. If you want pure American growth exposure without any foreign influence, VUG delivers that. If you don't mind a sliver of international names mixed in with your tech giants, QQQ's composition won't materially change your risk profile.

Sector Weights

Both funds lean hard into tech, but QQQ's Nasdaq-100 pedigree leaves it with almost no exposure to financial-services names (0.3%) and only a token weight in real estate (0.1%). VUG, tracking the broader CRSP U.S. Large Cap Growth Index, carries a still-modest 5.4% in banks and insurers plus a 1.1% real-estate slice, enough to matter if rates shift. The difference shows up in healthcare as well: VUG's 5.6% beats QQQ's 5.0%, while QQQ compensates with a larger 7.8% stake in consumer-defensive stocks such as Costco and Pepsi, a sector VUG barely owns at 1.3%.

Energy and materials are rounding errors in either portfolio, yet even here QQQ is the more concentrated bet. Its combined 1.6% in energy and basic materials edges above VUG's 1.0%, and QQQ's 3.3% industrials weight is about a percentage point lighter than VUG's 3.8%. For investors, the takeaway is simple: VUG offers a slightly wider runway across growth-oriented sectors, while QQQ doubles down on the Nasdaq's brand-name tech giants and the consumer staples that happen to trade there.

Top 10 Holdings

Both ETFs concentrate heavily in the same three tech giants, but VUG pushes its bets further. NVIDIA tops both lists, yet commands 12.7% of VUG's assets versus 8.6% in QQQ. The same pattern shows up the line: Apple and Microsoft each eat up about two percentage points more of VUG's portfolio. Add it together and the top three names represent 35.2% of VUG's money, compared with 22.1% for QQQ. That's a meaningful gap if any of these stocks hit a rough patch.

Tesla sneaks into QQQ's top five at 3.8%, while VUG swaps in Alphabet's A-shares at 5.4%. The result is QQQ's fifth-largest position carries a smaller weight than VUG's fifth, even though QQQ holds fewer names overall. For investors, this means VUG offers slightly more concentrated exposure to mega-cap growth, while QQQ spreads the risk a bit wider across its universe. Neither approach is inherently better - it just depends how much single-stock risk you're comfortable carrying.

Valuation & Growth Metrics

QQQ trades at a noticeably lower multiple across every valuation metric. The Nasdaq-100 proxy’s 25.1 P/E and 6.4 price-to-book sit about 15% and 33% below VUG’s corresponding 29.7 and 9.6 readings. Even on sales, investors pay roughly two-thirds as much for each dollar of QQQ revenue. That discount isn’t because the portfolio is stuffed with slow growers; long-term earnings growth is only a point and a half lower (10.8% vs 12.2%), and the tech-heavy basket has still compounded earnings at nearly 16% a year.

VUG’s loftier price tag buys faster historical expansion 24% annual earnings and 12.5% sales growth versus QQQ’s 15.8% and 8.3%. Whether that extra speed justifies the richer valuation hinges on how reliably those higher growth rates persist. Patient bulls who believe large-cap growth can keep sprinting may stomach VUG’s premium, while buyers who’d rather pay less for slightly tamer expansion might find QQQ the quieter bet.

Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

QQQ's 17.5% one-year return beat VUG by 3.5 percentage points, but that extra performance comes at a price - literally. You'll pay 0.20% annually versus VUG's rock-bottom 0.04% fee, which means QQQ costs five times more to own. For a $10,000 investment, that's $16 more per year, or $160 over a decade. Whether that premium is worth it depends on whether you believe the NASDAQ-100's tech-heavy concentration can keep delivering superior returns.

The choice really comes down to what you want from your growth allocation. QQQ gives you pure tech exposure with Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia dominating the portfolio, while VUG spreads its bets across 275 large growth stocks including healthcare and consumer names. Both ETFs hold similar tech weightings around 52%, but VUG's broader diversification might cushion the blow when growth stocks hit a rough patch. If you're comfortable paying more for concentrated tech exposure and potentially higher volatility, QQQ fits. If you prefer a wider growth net with lower costs, VUG makes more sense.

If you want to have look at other ETF comparisons, check out this: Fund Overlap Tool

Data sources: The data has been obtained from the ETF provider's website and ETF fact sheet.

Table of Content

• Annual & Cumulative Returns
• Risk Metrics
• Dividend Yield & Growth
• Fees & Liquidity
• ETF Composition: Asset Classes
• Regional Allocation
• Sector Weights
• Top 10 Holdings
• Valuation & Growth Metrics
• Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

ETF Issuers & Investment Objective

Vanguard's VOO and Schwab's SCHD start from different planets. VOO is the plain-vanilla tracker of the S&P 500: 500 of the biggest U.S. names, market-cap weighted, with a microscopic 0.03% expense ratio that leaves almost all of the index's 14.4% one-year gain in your pocket. The portfolio tilts heavily toward tech over a third of assets so the P/E sits at 22.4 and the dividend yield is a slim 1.1%, roughly what you'd expect from growth-heavy large caps.

SCHD, on the other hand, is built for cash flow. Schwab filters for companies that have not only paid but grown dividends for at least ten consecutive years, then scores them on cash-flow-to-debt, return on equity, and dividend growth rate. The resulting basket lands in the large-value bin, trades at a 13.7 P/E, and throws off a 3.8% yield more than triple VOO's while costing only 0.06%. Energy pipelines, consumer-staples giants, and healthcare stalwarts dominate the lineup, so the one-year return of 7.8% lags the broad market but arrives with a smoother ride and a steadier paycheck.

Annual & Cumulative Returns

The numbers tell a clear story about two very different investment approaches. VOO's 14.43% one-year return handily beat SCHD's 7.8%, extending a pattern where the S&P 500 tracker has outperformed across every major timeframe except year-to-date. Stretch it to three years and the gap widens dramatically - VOO's 21.51% annualized return versus SCHD's 8.5% shows how growth stocks have dominated this cycle. Even over a full decade, VOO's 15.69% edges out SCHD's still-respectable 12.81%.

But 2024's reversal hints at a potential shift. SCHD's 6.23% year-to-date gain while VOO barely treads water at 1.07% suggests dividend-focused strategies may be finding their footing. The value-oriented ETF trades at just 13.73 times earnings compared to VOO's 22.44, offering a margin of safety that could prove valuable if market leadership rotates. For investors choosing between them, it's really about temperament - VOO offers pure growth exposure with a rock-bottom 0.03% fee, while SCHD provides a hefty 3.82% yield and potential downside protection, albeit with slightly higher costs at 0.06%.

Risk Metrics

The numbers tell a clear story here. VOO shows lower volatility across both time periods, with 1-year volatility at 10.99% versus SCHD's 11.45%. That half-percentage point difference might seem small, but it compounds over time. The 3-year picture widens the gap slightly, VOO's 11.96% volatility against SCHD's 12.61%.

What's striking is the Sharpe ratio difference. At 1.4, VOO has delivered significantly better risk-adjusted returns compared to SCHD's 0.2 over three years. This means VOO investors have been compensated better for the risk they've taken on. The higher volatility in SCHD likely stems from its sector concentration, energy and consumer defensive stocks tend to swing more than the tech-heavy but more diversified S&P 500. For investors choosing between these funds, the question becomes whether SCHD's 3.82% dividend yield compensates for this risk-return trade-off.

Dividend Yield & Growth

The yield gap between these two funds is striking. SCHD's 3.82% yield is more than triple VOO's 1.13%, which means every $10,000 invested generates $382 versus $113 in annual dividend income. This difference stems from their fundamental approaches: VOO simply owns the entire S&P 500 regardless of dividend policy, while SCHD specifically targets companies with consistent dividend payment histories and stronger fundamentals.

For investors focused on income generation, SCHD clearly delivers more cash flow today. However, that higher yield comes with sector concentration in energy and consumer defensive stocks, which typically pay higher dividends but may offer less growth potential. VOO's lower yield reflects its heavy tech weighting (35.1%), where companies often prefer share buybacks over dividends. The choice ultimately depends on whether you prioritize immediate income or prefer the S&P 500's broader diversification with modest dividend income.

Fees & Liquidity

VOO's 0.03% expense ratio is about as low as fees get in this business - you're paying three cents annually for every hundred dollars invested. SCHD costs twice that at 0.06%, but we're still talking about an almost trivial difference in dollar terms. On a $10,000 position, that's three dollars versus six dollars per year. The real cost consideration isn't the expense ratio anyway - it's whether you're paying any trading commissions or dealing with wide bid-ask spreads, though both ETFs trade millions of shares daily so liquidity isn't a concern.

The fee difference becomes more meaningful when you consider what each fund delivers. VOO gives you the entire S&P 500 with minimal turnover, keeping costs naturally low. SCHD's dividend-focused strategy requires more active management to screen for consistent dividend payers and maintain quality standards, which helps justify the slightly higher fee. For most investors, the choice between these two shouldn't hinge on a 0.03% difference in expenses - it's more about whether you want broad market exposure or specifically targeted dividend growth.

ETF Composition: Asset Classes

Both funds keep things simple: they're essentially all-in on U.S. equities, with VOO at 99.07 percent domestic stocks and SCHD right beside it at 99.07 percent. The residual single-digit basis points are parked in a mix of cash, tinyADR positions, and other miscellany nothing that will move the needle. What this means for you is that either choice gives you a pure play on American companies; international diversification has to come from elsewhere in your portfolio.

The split inside that 99 percent is where the stories diverge. VOO’s holdings track the S&P 500, so you’re getting the market’s sector weights in roughly their natural proportions meaning more than a third of every dollar is parked in tech names. SCHD starts with the same U.S. market, then screens for dividend durability and fundamental health, so energy pipes, consumer-staples shelves, and healthcare labs crowd out some of the megacap software stocks. Same country, very different sector exposures, and that trade-off drives most of the day-to-day performance gap you’ll notice between the two.

Regional Allocation

Both funds are virtually identical when it comes to geographic exposure: VOO parks 99.5% of its assets in North America while SCHD is right behind at 99.2%. The scraps that sit outside the U.S. and Canada are immaterial VOO's 0.4% "Europe Developed" slice and 0.1% Asia Emerging allocation add up to less than most single-stock tracking error, and SCHD's 0.8% U.K. and trace Latin America positions are equally forgettable.

What this means is that neither ETF offers any meaningful international diversification. If the dollar strengthens or overseas markets surge, you won't participate through these holdings. The choice between them has to rest on something else sector mix, yield profile, or valuation not on where the companies earn their money.

Sector Weights

VOO mirrors the S&P 500's tech-heavy profile: more than a third of every dollar is parked in technology names, while energy gets less than 3 percent and utilities barely 2 percent. SCHD flips that script. Energy commands over 20 percent of the portfolio, and consumer staples think cereal, toothpaste, and household goods add another 18 percent. The result is a basket that leans on cash-rich, dividend-paying incumbents rather than the growth engines that dominate the broad index.

For investors, the contrast means different cyclical exposure. When oil prices spike or investors seek shelter in steady dividends, SCHD's overweight in pipelines, pharmaceuticals, and soap makers tends to cushion the ride. Conversely, during tech-led rallies, VOO's 35 percent stake in the sector captures more of the upside while SCHD's 9 percent tech weight leaves it behind. Neither mix is inherently better; it's a question of which economic weather you want your portfolio dressed for.

Top 10 Holdings

NVIDIA dominates VOO at 7.75%, nearly matching the combined weight of SCHD's two largest positions. The S&P tracker spreads 24% of its assets across just five tech giants, a concentration that explains both its recent 22.4 P/E and its sensitivity to growth-stock sentiment. SCHD's approach couldn't look more different: Lockheed Martin leads at 4.69%, and the top five holdings total barely 21% with no single stock above 5%. These aren't the high-fliers that populate VOO's roster, they're cash-rich, dividend-paying stalwarts trading at a 13.7 multiple.

What jumps out is how sector weightings map to individual names. VOO's 35% tech allocation shows up in familiar consumer-facing giants like Apple (6.87%) and Microsoft (6.15%), companies most investors already know. SCHD's tilt toward energy and defense surfaces in Chevron at 4.15% and Lockheed at 4.69%, names that don't appear in typical broad-market portfolios. The concentration gap matters: VOO's top five decide a quarter of your return, while SCHD's five largest barely move the needle, making SCHD less hostage to single-stock risk but also less likely to capture explosive tech moves.

Valuation & Growth Metrics

VOO trades at 22.4 times earnings and 4.6 times book value, nearly double SCHD's 13.7 P/E and 2.7 P/B. That premium buys faster growth: the S&P 500 tracker has delivered 10.5% long-term earnings growth and 8% sales growth, while SCHD's qualified dividend payers have managed just 5.6% and 4.3% respectively. The numbers spell out the familiar trade-off - you pay more for the index's tech-heavy roster in exchange for a higher growth trajectory.

SCHD's lower multiples also mask a weak spot: historical earnings have actually shrunk 1.7% over the past five years, suggesting the fund's value tilt screens for companies with slower, sometimes negative, profit trends. VOO's consistent 10% earnings expansion shows why investors accept a richer valuation - they're banking that today's premium gets eroded by tomorrow's faster compounding. Neither approach is inherently better; it comes down to whether you want growth at a fair price or income at a discount.

Which ETF Fits Your Portfolio?

VOO gives you the whole market at a rock-bottom 0.03% fee and just delivered 14.43% over the past year. That’s fine if you want the 35% tech weighting and can live on a 1.13% yield. SCHD costs twice as much still only 0.06% but pays 3.82% in cash every quarter and holds stodgier, cheaper stocks that kept last year’s gain to 7.8%. The trade-off is blunt: more growth and less income with VOO, more income and less growth with SCHD.

Pick VOO for the core of a retirement account where you’ll reinvest every dividend for the next decade or two. Use SCHD if you’re already spending the distributions or you sleep better owning pipelines, cereal makers, and drug companies at 13.7-times earnings instead of Apple and Microsoft at 22.4-times. There’s no law against holding both: a 70/30 or 60/40 split keeps you cheaply anchored to the S&P while the quarterly checks still roll in.

If you want to have look at other ETF comparisons, check out this: Fund Overlap Tool

Data sources: The data has been obtained from the ETF provider's website and ETF fact sheet.