VTI vs SPYM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VTI and SPYM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF, while SPYM is State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 508 for SPYM. SPYM is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPYM ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 60.
What is the main difference between VTI and SPYM?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to SPYM's 508, and 88% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | VTI | SPYM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.02% |
| Holdings | 3,524 | 508 |
| Top-10 concentration | 33.2% | 38.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.05% | 1.01% |
| Average volume | 3,115,564 | 13,181,341 |
| Performance | ||
| YTD return | +12.5% | +12.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 12.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -9.1% |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 1.15 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 51/100 | 66/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 86/100 | 87/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF vs State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF
SPYM leads
SPYM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support SPYM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPYM over VTI, 64 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPYM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum. SPYM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPYM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. SPYM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF and State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VTI vs SPYM: 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 | VTI | SPYM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.02% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3,524 | 508 | VTI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 33.2% | 38.1% | VTI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.05% | 1.01% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -9.2% | -9.1% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13% | 12.7% | 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 VTI and SPYM 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.
- Momentum51 vs 66SPYM +15
- Quality74 vs 75Even
- Value42 vs 41Even
- Risk Resilience86 vs 87Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor SPYM. SPYM’s edge is concentrated in 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +16
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
SPYM's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VTI and SPYM 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 | VTI | SPYM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.02% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3,524 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,115,564 | 13,181,341 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 12.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -9.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.74 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.00 | 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
VTI and SPYM share 88.01% of their weighted exposure across 500 common holdings.
2,999 holdings are unique to VTI, and 6 holdings are unique to SPYM. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
SPYM is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 38.1% of the fund, against 33.24% for VTI (508 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 | VTI | SPYM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 6.4% | 8.07% | 6.4% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 6.29% | 7.32% | 6.29% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 4.79% | 5.58% | 4.79% |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.65% | 3.76% | 3.65% |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A | 2.9% | 2.98% | 2.9% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.56% | 2.61% | 2.56% |
| GOOGALPHABET INC CL C | 2.31% | 2.38% | 2.31% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC CLASS A | 1.7% | 2.16% | 1.7% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What VTI adds that SPYM doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | SPYM |
|---|---|---|
| SNOWSnowflake Inc | 0.13% | Not held |
| NETCloudflare Inc | 0.12% | Not held |
| SPCXSpace Exploration Technologies Corp | 0.09% | Not held |
| OKEONEOK Inc | 0.08% | Not held |
| BEBloom Energy Corp | 0.08% | Not held |
| LNGCheniere Energy Inc | 0.08% | Not held |
What SPYM adds that VTI doesn’t
| Holding | SPYM | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 2682320DFALCON TOPCO INC | 0.09% | Not held |
| NXPINXP SEMICONDUCTORS NV | 0.09% | Not held |
| MRNAMODERNA INC | 0.07% | 0.03% |
| AMCRAMCOR PLC | 0.03% | 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.
VTI vs SPYM: five-year payout growth
VTI grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.28% a year against SPYM's 6.04%. Neither fund reduced its annual distribution in any year of the window.
| Dividend metric | VTI | SPYM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.28% | 6.04% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.770 | $0.677 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.757 | $0.907 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #81 of 138 | #86 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 SPYM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPYM | 60 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 41 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 5.3% vs 6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 86 vs 87 |
| 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 VTI and SPYM 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SPYM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SPYM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPYM +4
- 60 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- SPYM +5
- 59 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- SPYM +4
- 60 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 66 vs 66
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 15 when SPYM moved ahead of VTI.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VTI
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SPYM
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week High Proximity, MACD Bearish Crossover.
SPYM 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.51%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1VTI closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPYM's edge.
- 2VTI's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SPYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
SPYM leads 4 of 5 windows| Metric | VTI | SPYM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.1% | -0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.2% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.4% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | 12.5% | 12.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.8% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | VTI | SPYM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 13.4 | 12.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.3% | 6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.8% | 9.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | VTI | SPYM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 1.15 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -1.9% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 12.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VTI and SPYM?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to SPYM's 508, and 88% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do VTI and SPYM overlap?
VTI and SPYM share 88.01% of their weighted exposure across 500 common holdings. 2,999 holdings are unique to VTI, and 6 holdings are unique to SPYM. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, VTI or SPYM?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 508 for SPYM.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.03% for VTI and 0.02% for SPYM.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.05% for VTI and 1.01% for SPYM.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 13% annualized for VTI and 12.7% for SPYM.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -9.2% for VTI and -9.1% for SPYM.
Compare VTI and SPYM 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.