LFGY vs VTI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
LFGY and VTI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. LFGY is YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF, while VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 84 for LFGY. LFGY is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTI ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 39.
What is the main difference between LFGY and VTI?
LFGY puts 56% of its assets in Financial Services, while VTI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
| Metric | LFGY | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.02% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 84 | 3,524 |
| Top-10 concentration | 51.5% | 33.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 81.48% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 45,114 | 3,115,564 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -55.4% | +15.8% |
| YTD return | -34.2% | +12.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 43.5% | 13% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -56.1% | -9.2% |
| Beta | 2.35 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.68 | 1.32 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 39/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 51/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 20/100 | 86/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
VTI leads
VTI leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VTI, and its current signal state is conflicted.
YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTI over LFGY, 60 versus 39 as of Oct 21, 2026. VTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while LFGY holds the stronger value profile. VTI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VTI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 21 points over 30 sessions.
Compare YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
LFGY vs VTI: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | LFGY | VTI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.02% | 0.03% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 84 | 3,524 | VTI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 51.5% | 33.2% | VTI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 81.48% | 1.05% | LFGY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -56.1% | -9.2% | VTI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 43.5% | 13% | VTI |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare LFGY and VTI against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience20 vs 86VTI +66
- Quality33 vs 74VTI +41
- Momentum24 vs 51VTI +27
- Value67 vs 42LFGY +25
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VTI. VTI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; LFGY keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
VTI's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LFGY and VTI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VTI (Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
LFGY (YieldMax Crypto Industry & Tech Portfolio Option Income ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 37.8% against 9.8%.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | LFGY | VTI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.02% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 84 | 3,524 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 45,114 | 3,115,564 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 43.5% | 13% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -56.1% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | 0.86 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.35 | 1.02 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
LFGY and VTI share 5.5% of their weighted exposure across 15 common holdings.
8 holdings are unique to LFGY, and 3,484 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
LFGY is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 51.55% of the fund, against 33.24% for VTI (84 holdings vs 3,524). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | LFGY | VTI | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 5.2% | 6.4% | 5.2% |
| XYZBlock Inc | 5.2% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| PYPLPayPal Holdings Inc | 3.37% | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| MSTRStrategy Inc | 3.48% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| COINCoinbase Global Inc | 2.57% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| CRCLCircle Internet Group Inc | 3.15% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| MARAMARA Holdings Inc | 3.52% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
| HUTHUT 8 CORP | 4.34% | 0.01% | 0.01% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What LFGY adds that VTI doesn’t
| Holding | LFGY | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| First American Government Obligations Fund 12/01/2031 | 10.9% | Not held |
| GLXYGalaxy Digital Inc | 5.64% | 0.01% |
| XYZBlock Inc | 5.2% | 0.06% |
| OPRAOpera Ltd | 4.73% | Not held |
| RIOTRiot Platforms Inc | 4.49% | 0.01% |
| HUTHUT 8 CORP | 4.34% | 0.01% |
What VTI adds that LFGY doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | LFGY |
|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple Inc | 6.29% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.79% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 3.65% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.56% | Not held |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.31% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
LFGY vs VTI: five-year payout growth
VTI grew its split-adjusted payout at 6.28% a year over 2020-2025. LFGY began paying distributions in 2025, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | LFGY | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $23.677 | $3.757 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #81 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VTI | 39 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | LFGY | Value 67 vs 42 |
| Technicals | VTI | Price vs 50-day -12.6% vs 0.2%; vs 200-day -24.1% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | VTI | Risk Resilience 20 vs 86 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LFGY and VTI and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on VTI.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20VTI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTI +21
- 39 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- VTI +20
- 39 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- VTI +19
- 41 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only LFGY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.89%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.09%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VTI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.66%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.96%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
VTI leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.93%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1LFGY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 66 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTI's edge.
- 2LFGY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
VTI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LFGY | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -22.6% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -21% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -29.5% | 8.4% |
| Year to date | -34.2% | 12.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -55.4% | 15.8% |
Technicals
VTI has the stronger structure| Metric | LFGY | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 22.9 | 55.2 |
| ADX (14) | 29 | 13.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.6% | 0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -24.1% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.8% | 9.8% |
Risk
VTI is the more resilient| Metric | LFGY | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.35 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.71 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.68 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -56.1% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -56.1% | -1.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.5% | 13% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.5% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between LFGY and VTI?
LFGY puts 56% of its assets in Financial Services, while VTI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
How much do LFGY and VTI overlap?
LFGY and VTI share 5.5% of their weighted exposure across 15 common holdings. 8 holdings are unique to LFGY, and 3,484 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, LFGY or VTI?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 84 for LFGY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 1.02% for LFGY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
LFGY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 81.48% against 1.05% for VTI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
LFGY has been more volatile over the past year, at 43.5% annualized against 13% for VTI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VTI fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -9.2% against -56.1% for LFGY.
Compare LFGY and VTI with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.