FTEC vs VGT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
FTEC and VGT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. FTEC is Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF, while VGT is Vanguard Information Technology ETF. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VGT ahead on AIQ Score, 48 versus 42.
What is the main difference between FTEC and VGT?
FTEC and VGT hold essentially the same portfolio: 96% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | FTEC | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.09% |
| Holdings | 296 | 322 |
| Top-10 concentration | 63.7% | 62.4% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.39% | 0.39% |
| Average volume | 277,970 | 4,245,287 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +28.2% | +28.2% |
| YTD return | +27.7% | +27.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +18.7% | +18.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 25% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -16.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35% | -35.1% |
| Beta | 1.71 | 1.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.96 | 0.96 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.52 | 1.52 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 42/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 26/100 | 32/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 63/100 | 63/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF vs Vanguard Information Technology ETF
VGT leads
VGT leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support VGT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF
Vanguard Information Technology ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VGT over FTEC, 48 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. VGT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. VGT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VGT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. VGT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF and Vanguard Information Technology ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
FTEC vs VGT: 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 | FTEC | VGT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.08% | 0.09% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 296 | 322 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 63.7% | 62.4% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.39% | 0.39% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35% | -35.1% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 25% | 25% | Similar |
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 FTEC and VGT 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.
- Quality55 vs 71VGT +16
- Momentum26 vs 32VGT +6
- Value33 vs 32Even
- Risk Resilience63 vs 63Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor VGT. VGT’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
VGT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FTEC and VGT 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 | FTEC | VGT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.09% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 296 | 322 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 277,970 | 4,245,287 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 25% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -16.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.96 | 0.96 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.71 | 1.71 | 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
FTEC and VGT share 96.33% of their weighted exposure across 280 common holdings.
12 holdings are unique to FTEC, and 39 holdings are unique to VGT. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
FTEC is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 63.73% of the fund, against 62.39% for VGT (296 holdings vs 322). 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 | FTEC | VGT | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 17.69% | 17.16% | 17.16% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 16.43% | 16.26% | 16.26% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 11.28% | 10.96% | 10.96% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.44% | 4.21% | 4.21% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 4.31% | 3.82% | 3.82% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC | 3.2% | 3.18% | 3.18% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc | 1.69% | 1.91% | 1.69% |
| INTCINTEL CORP | 1.75% | 1.65% | 1.65% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What FTEC adds that VGT doesn’t
| Holding | FTEC | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| STATE STREET 60 DAY MONEY MARK | 0.06% | Not held |
What VGT adds that FTEC doesn’t
| Holding | VGT | FTEC |
|---|---|---|
| QQnity Electronics Inc | 0.16% | Not held |
| CRCLCircle Internet Group Inc | 0.04% | Not held |
| AEHRAehr Test Systems | 0.04% | 0.01% |
| VPGVishay Precision Group Inc | 0.02% | Not held |
| PRCHPorch Group Inc | 0.01% | Not held |
| LWLGLightwave Logic Inc | 0.01% | 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.
FTEC vs VGT: five-year payout growth
FTEC grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 2.04% a year against VGT's 0.91%.
| Dividend metric | FTEC | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 2.04% | 0.91% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.864 | $0.364 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.956 | $0.381 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #120 of 138 | #126 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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VGT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VGT | 42 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 33 vs 32 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 10.9% vs 10.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 63 vs 63 |
| 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 FTEC and VGT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 VGT.
How the comparison changed
100 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20VGT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VGT +6
- 42 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- VGT +5
- 44 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- VGT +4
- 54 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- VGT +3
- 54 vs 57
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when VGT moved ahead of FTEC.
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.
FTEC and VGT carry the same 3 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VGT 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.74%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.71%, 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.
- 1FTEC closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to VGT's edge.
- 2FTEC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3VGT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
FTEC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FTEC | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.9% | -5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.9% | -4.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.9% | 4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19% | 19% |
| Year to date | 27.7% | 27.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.2% | 28.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FTEC | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35 | 35 |
| ADX (14) | 21.5 | 21.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.9% | 10.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19% | 18.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FTEC | VGT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.71 | 1.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.96 | 0.96 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.52 | 1.52 |
| Max drawdown | -16.4% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | -7.5% | -7.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 25% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between FTEC and VGT?
FTEC and VGT hold essentially the same portfolio: 96% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do FTEC and VGT overlap?
FTEC and VGT share 96.33% of their weighted exposure across 280 common holdings. 12 holdings are unique to FTEC, and 39 holdings are unique to VGT. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, FTEC or VGT?
They hold a similar number of positions: 296 for FTEC and 322 for VGT.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.08% for FTEC and 0.09% for VGT.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.39% for FTEC and 0.39% for VGT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 25% annualized for FTEC and 25% for VGT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -35% for FTEC and -35.1% for VGT.
Compare FTEC and VGT 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.