I prefer VOO for a simple, lasting investment in leading US companies. It already spreads the investment across about 500 businesses while keeping the scope clear. VTI suits investors who also want companies outside the S&P 500.
Three findings make the difference easier to see.
- About 88 cents of each dollar in VTI went into stocks also held by VOO. About 12 cents went into additional holdings.
- Over roughly 16 years, KRW 100 million grew to about KRW 884 million in VTI and KRW 927 million in VOO, with distributions reinvested and exchange rates held constant.
- VTI’s longer holdings list did not prevent a large fall. The largest decline from a previous high was about 35% for VTI and 34% for VOO.
Holdings are dated 2026-06-30. Performance uses the same 2010-09-09 to 2026-09-08 period for both funds. Past results do not establish a future winner.
VTI vs VOO at a glance
| Item | VTI | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Manager | Vanguard | Vanguard |
| Index | Morningstar US Total Market Index Formerly CRSP US Total Market Index | S&P 500 |
| Annual expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| Number of stocks | 3,507 | 505 |
| ETF assets, USD billions | 690.1 | 1,048.8 |
| Trailing cash distribution yield | 1.04% | 1.05% |
| Distributions | Quarterly, variable | Quarterly, variable |
Sources: Vanguard VTI and Vanguard VOO. Assets under management (AUM) mean the money held in the ETF. The trailing distribution yield divides the past year’s cash payments by the share price; it does not promise a future yield.
The manager and fee are the same. The main difference is how much of the market each fund owns. VTI’s current benchmark is the Morningstar US Total Market Index, previously known as the CRSP US Total Market Index.
Actual overlap and the largest positions
Comparing the complete portfolios on 2026-06-30 gave a weight-adjusted overlap of 88.28%. Two funds holding the same stocks at the same weights would overlap by 100%. VTI and VOO were similar in both their holdings and how much money went into them.
| Holding | VTI | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp | 6.37% | 7.53% |
| Apple Inc | 5.88% | 6.61% |
| Microsoft Corp | 3.84% | 4.31% |
| Amazon.com Inc | 3.20% | 3.63% |
| Alphabet Inc · Class A | 2.90% | 3.26% |
| Broadcom Inc | 2.48% | 2.78% |
| Alphabet Inc · Class C | 2.29% | 2.60% |
| Micron Technology Inc | 1.80% | 2.02% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 1.71% | 1.92% |
| Tesla Inc | 1.64% | 1.84% |
| Each fund’s top ten combined | 32.11% | 36.49% |
The ten largest stock positions were the same in both funds. Together they accounted for about 32% of VTI and 36% of VOO. VTI puts a little less money into the largest companies and uses that money to own more of the market. Alphabet appears twice because it has different share classes; add those rows when considering the company as a whole.
Is VTI really much more diversified than VOO?
VTI holds many more stocks, but it does not divide the money equally among them. Both funds allocate more money to companies with a larger stock-market value. This is called market-cap weighting. Adding a small business does not give it the same allocation as Apple or Nvidia.
Stocks shared with VOO represented 88.29% of VTI’s equity portfolio. VTI-only stocks represented 11.71%. That is the roughly 88 cents and 12 cents described earlier. Thousands of extra names can still account for a relatively small part of the money.
The extra holdings reduce dependence on individual companies. But large and smaller businesses can fall together when the US stock market declines. More stocks alone do not make VTI much safer.
How much did VTI’s additional small and mid-cap stocks affect returns?
VOO performed better over this comparison period. VTI’s annualized return was 0.34 percentage points lower. Owning the broader market did not add to the return in this period.
The whole difference cannot be assigned to smaller companies. Shared large companies have different weights in the two funds, and some large companies are outside the S&P 500. We can measure the actual difference between choosing the two ETFs. Measuring the precise contribution from smaller companies alone would require historical stock-level weights and returns.
The additional stocks affect the fund in proportion to the money invested in them. Even a strong gain in those companies does not become the return of VTI as a whole. When they struggle, the results of the remaining large companies still count too.
Matching-period returns, CAGR, drawdown and volatility
This table compares buying both funds on the same day and holding them to the same end date. Total return includes price changes and reinvested distributions. Spending the distributions as cash would produce a different result.
- CAGR, or annualized return: the constant yearly rate that would produce the same growth. It does not mean the fund earned that rate every year.
- Maximum drawdown (MDD): the largest fall from an earlier high during the period. A −35% drawdown means the investment fell to about 65% of its previous peak value.
- Volatility: how widely returns moved up and down. A larger number means bigger fluctuations.
| Metric | VTI | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Price-only cumulative return | 568.91% | 594.90% |
| Cumulative total return | 784.45% | 827.03% |
| Total-return CAGR | 14.60% | 14.94% |
| Maximum drawdown | −35.00% | −34.01% |
| MDD peak → trough | 2020-02-19 → 2020-03-23 | 2020-02-19 → 2020-03-23 |
| Annualized daily volatility | 17.30% | 16.98% |
VOO had the higher return, a slightly smaller maximum drawdown and lower volatility in this period. The key finding is that VTI’s extra holdings did not deliver a smaller fall.
The correlation between daily total returns was 0.9956. A value close to 1 means the funds tended to move together. Their movements were very similar, but small return differences accumulated into different final balances.
What would a KRW 100 million long-term investment become?
These results reinvest distributions and assume no further contributions. Each row is a separate KRW 100 million investment made on its stated starting date.
| Investment period | VTI | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| About 16 years 2010-09-09 → 2026-09-08 | KRW 884.45 million | KRW 927.03 million |
| 10 years 2016-09-08 → 2026-09-08 | KRW 394.62 million | KRW 413.98 million |
| 5 years 2021-09-08 → 2026-09-08 | KRW 174.06 million | KRW 182.24 million |
The longest period ended with a difference of about KRW 42.58 million. That is the effect of an annualized gap of 0.34 percentage points accumulating over roughly 16 years.
These figures apply dollar returns to a KRW principal with exchange rates held constant. They do not reproduce actual currency conversions and exclude investor taxes and trading costs.
Did broader-market rebounds and large-cap leadership produce different results?
The full-period result can make VOO look like the consistent winner. Shorter windows show periods when VTI led as well.
| Window | VTI | VOO | Gap, pp |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-12-31 → 2016-12-30 | 12.83% | 12.17% | 0.65 |
| 2020-03-23 → 2020-12-31 | 76.95% | 70.54% | 6.41 |
| 2022-12-30 → 2025-12-31 | 82.75% | 86.01% | -3.26 |
VTI led in 2016 and the rebound from the 2020 low. VOO led over 2023–2025. The more rewarding part of the market can change over time.
Compare the funds within each row. The windows have different lengths, so their return sizes are not directly comparable. The 2020 start date was selected with hindsight as the market low. These are selected examples, not a complete classification of market regimes or proof that company size caused the whole difference.
If returns are similar, why buy VTI at all?
VTI lets you own potential future leaders without choosing them in advance. It holds companies before they enter the S&P 500 and participates when those businesses do well. The tradeoff is holding them through weak periods and accepting the additional risks of smaller companies.
For an individual investor, I find it practical to choose the already diversified VOO and focus on regular investing and staying invested. VTI’s extra breadth is not essential to that preference. Calling it “over-diversification” describes the scope I want, rather than proving that VTI is inefficient.
Focus does not mean fewer holdings always produce better growth. It means choosing the market exposure you want and maintaining that approach. Both ETFs can compound. VOO changes its membership too, but it may trail VTI when large companies struggle.
Which long-term investor might prefer each fund?
| If you want… | Possible fit | Tradeoff |
|---|---|---|
| A simple investment in leading US companies | VOO | More money concentrated in the largest companies |
| The broad US market, beyond large companies | VTI | Weak performance and fluctuations in additional holdings |
| To review an ETF you already own | Check your holding policy before switching | Taxes and trading costs from a switch |
Frequently asked questions
Does holding VTI and VOO equally improve diversification substantially?
They share many large companies, so combining them does not greatly expand the investment’s scope. Compared with VTI alone, the mix increases S&P 500 exposure. Reducing overall stock-market risk also calls for considering cash and other asset classes.
Are all VTI-only holdings small or mid-cap?
No. The S&P 500 does not simply hold the 500 biggest companies in order. Requirements such as sufficient trading activity and profitability mean some large companies can remain outside it.
Does VOO’s historical lead make it the better future investment?
That does not follow. VTI led in some windows too. Consider which exposure you can maintain over time, rather than choosing only from past returns.
Do the KRW figures include currency movements and taxes?
No. They compare the ETFs under the same conditions. Actual currency movements and taxes change the amount an investor receives. You can also explore currency and distribution settings in the backtest below.
Calculation methods and precise figures
The comparison uses 4,023 matching daily observations from 2010-09-09 to 2026-09-08. Five later VTI trading observations were missing, so we ended earlier rather than fill the gaps.
- Price-only return uses closing prices adjusted for stock splits.
- Total return uses prices adjusted for reinvested distributions: (ending price ÷ starting price − 1) × 100.
- CAGR annualizes that ratio using elapsed calendar days and a 365.2425-day year.
- MDD is the largest daily decline from a previous high. Volatility is the sample standard deviation of daily simple returns × √252. Correlation is Pearson correlation of matching daily returns.
- Final value is KRW 100 million × the total-return price ratio, allowing fractional holdings with no further contributions or withdrawals.
The cumulative total-return gap, VTI minus VOO, was -42.58 percentage points. VTI’s final wealth was 4.59% smaller. The first figure compares returns on the starting principal; the second compares final wealth against VOO’s ending balance.
We reuse the existing article-return and backtest-risk calculations and validate daily split and distribution adjustments. Monetary calculations use HALF_UP rounding to two decimal places. Displayed KRW millions and percentages use two decimals.
Fund expenses already affect prices and are not deducted again. Investor taxes, commissions, spreads and changing exchange rates are excluded. This article’s pre-tax total-return index differs from the existing backtest’s after-tax reinvestment on the trading day after the ex-dividend date. It can also differ from a brokerage account that reinvests cash on the payment date.
Portfolio calculations and original sources
Portfolio weights use the complete 2026-06-30 VTI N-PORT and VOO N-PORT reports, both filed 2026-08-28.
We matched 504 shared securities by identifier. Weight-adjusted overlap sums the smaller weight in each fund for every shared security. It differs from the allocation to shared stocks, explaining the slightly different figures. Shared positions represented 99.86% of VOO’s equity portfolio.
We selected positive long common-equity positions and normalized each equity portfolio to 100%. Cash, debt and preferred shares are excluded; rights classified as equity are included. The calculation uses 3528 VTI positions and 506 VOO positions, with different share classes kept separate. These counts differ in date and definition from the product-page stock counts. This snapshot does not reconstruct historical daily weights.
Vanguard’s 2026-08-31 size classifications separately showed VTI at 69.4% “Large” and 4.3% “Medium/Large,” against 77.6% and 4.8% for VOO. These categories do not equal S&P 500 membership. Different sector classifications also prevent a direct comparison of the published technology-sector weights.
Vanguard advisor product pages were checked on 2026-10-05. The main table uses ETF share-class assets. Whole-fund assets including other classes were USD 2,343.6 billion for VTI and USD 1,757.6 billion for VOO. Same-date assets differed between the personal-investor and advisor pages, so both funds consistently use advisor figures.
Trailing cash yields divide distributions paid in the year through 2026-10-02 (USD 3.9482 per VTI share and USD 7.4282 per VOO share) by that day’s closing prices (USD 377.99 and USD 707.54). The 30-day SEC yields, which standardize recent income using a different method, were 1.03% and 1.00% respectively as of 2026-09-30.
Index sources: CRSP/Morningstar information, name transition and float weighting, and S&P U.S. Indices Methodology. CRSP announced the Morningstar name transition beginning 2026-07-28. VTI’s actual performance also includes different benchmarks before 2013.
What happened over your own investment period?
Study the companies behind VTI and VOO, then change the dates, currency and distribution settings to review growth and drawdowns together.
Open the VTI vs VOO backtestThis article contains the author’s investment opinion and source-dated observations. It is not personalized investment advice; invested principal can be lost.