PFFA vs VTI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PFFA and VTI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PFFA is Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF, while VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 198 for PFFA. VTI has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTI ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 43.
What is the main difference between PFFA and VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to PFFA's 198.
| Metric | PFFA | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 2.11% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 198 | 3,524 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 10.81% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 913,884 | 3,115,564 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -11.2% | +15.8% |
| YTD return | -10.8% | +12.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +4.2% | +11.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 13% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.3% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -22.7% | -25.4% |
| Beta | 0.41 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.80 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.28 | 1.32 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 43/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 25/100 | 51/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 86/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
VTI leads
VTI leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VTI, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTI over PFFA, 60 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. VTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. 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 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PFFA 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 | PFFA | VTI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 2.11% | 0.03% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 198 | 3,524 | VTI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 10.81% | 1.05% | PFFA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -22.7% | -25.4% | PFFA |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 8.8% | 13% | PFFA |
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 PFFA 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.
- Momentum25 vs 51VTI +26
- Quality53 vs 74VTI +21
- Value27 vs 42VTI +15
- Risk Resilience84 vs 86Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VTI. VTI’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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 — PFFA and VTI both carry a full feed there.
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 | PFFA | VTI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 2.11% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 198 | 3,524 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 913,884 | 3,115,564 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 13% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.3% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.80 | 0.86 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.41 | 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.
PFFA vs VTI: five-year payout growth
VTI grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.28% a year against PFFA's 1.65%. Neither fund reduced its annual distribution in any year of the window. PFFA: The 2020 payout was 28.8% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | PFFA | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 1.65% | 6.28% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.880 | $2.770 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.040 | $3.757 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #122 of 138 | #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 | 43 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VTI | Value 27 vs 42 |
| Technicals | VTI | Price vs 50-day -6.9% vs 0.2%; vs 200-day -8.9% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 84 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 PFFA 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 17 points. (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 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTI +17
- 43 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- VTI +16
- 43 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- VTI +17
- 43 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 PFFA
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.38%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- 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%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, 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 -0.79%, 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.
- 1PFFA closes the Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTI's edge.
- 2PFFA'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 | PFFA | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.6% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.4% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.4% | 8.4% |
| Year to date | -10.8% | 12.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -11.2% | 15.8% |
Technicals
VTI has the stronger structure| Metric | PFFA | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.2 | 55.2 |
| ADX (14) | 41.6 | 13.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.9% | 0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.9% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.6% | 9.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | PFFA | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.41 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.8 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.28 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -13.3% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -13.3% | -1.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 13% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between PFFA and VTI?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to PFFA's 198.
Which ETF is more diversified, PFFA or VTI?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 198 for PFFA.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 2.11% for PFFA.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
PFFA, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 10.81% against 1.05% for VTI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VTI has been more volatile over the past year, at 13% annualized against 8.8% for PFFA.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
PFFA fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -22.7% against -25.4% for VTI.
Compare PFFA 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.