VTI vs XME: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VTI and XME are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF, while XME is State Street SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 41 for XME. XME is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTI ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 51.
What is the main difference between VTI and XME?
XME puts 80% of its assets in Basic Materials, while VTI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
| Metric | VTI | XME |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 3,524 | 41 |
| Top-10 concentration | 33.2% | 46.8% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.04% | 0.34% |
| Average volume | 3,038,283 | 1,832,856 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +13.6% | +1.5% |
| YTD return | +13.1% | -2.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.3% | +19.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 37.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -27.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.4% | -37.3% |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.85 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.00 | 0.26 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 61/100 | 36/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 86/100 | 46/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF
VTI leads
VTI leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support VTI, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
State Street SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTI over XME, 63 versus 51 as of Oct 31, 2026. VTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. VTI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor VTI today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. VTI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF and State Street SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VTI vs XME: 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 | XME | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.35% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3,524 | 41 | VTI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 33.2% | 46.8% | VTI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.04% | 0.34% | VTI |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.4% | -37.3% | VTI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13% | 37.4% | 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 VTI and XME 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 Resilience86 vs 46VTI +40
- Momentum61 vs 36VTI +25
- Quality74 vs 67VTI +7
3 of 3 evidence groups favor VTI. VTI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
VTI's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VTI and XME 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 | XME | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3,524 | 41 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,038,283 | 1,832,856 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 37.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -27.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.16 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.85 | 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 XME share 0.59% of their weighted exposure across 38 common holdings.
3,461 holdings are unique to VTI, and 1 holding is unique to XME. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
XME is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.84% of the fund, against 33.24% for VTI (41 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 | XME | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NEMNEWMONT CORP | 0.14% | 5.33% | 0.14% |
| FCXFREEPORT MCMORAN INC | 0.12% | 4.49% | 0.12% |
| NUENUCOR CORP | 0.08% | 4% | 0.08% |
| STLDSTEEL DYNAMICS INC | 0.05% | 3.46% | 0.05% |
| RSRELIANCE INC | 0.03% | 3.9% | 0.03% |
| RGLDROYAL GOLD INC | 0.02% | 5.05% | 0.02% |
| CDECOEUR MINING INC | 0.02% | 5.17% | 0.02% |
| AAALCOA CORP | 0.02% | 2.89% | 0.02% |
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 XME doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | XME |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.4% | Not held |
| 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 |
What XME adds that VTI doesn’t
| Holding | XME | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| HLHECLA MINING CO | 5.58% | 0.01% |
| NEMNEWMONT CORP | 5.33% | 0.14% |
| CDECOEUR MINING INC | 5.17% | 0.02% |
| RGLDROYAL GOLD INC | 5.05% | 0.02% |
| UECURANIUM ENERGY CORP | 4.58% | 0.01% |
| FCXFREEPORT MCMORAN INC | 4.49% | 0.12% |
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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 3 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 | 63 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | VTI | Price vs 50-day -1.6% vs -10.5%; vs 200-day 5.6% vs -10.7% |
| Risk Resilience | VTI | Risk Resilience 86 vs 46 |
| 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 XME and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 VTI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28VTI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTI +12
- 63 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- VTI +9
- 56 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- VTI +15
- 65 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- XME +2
- 61 vs 63
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 11 when VTI moved ahead of XME.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VTI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.17%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.92%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only XME
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.78%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.76%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.2%, 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.
- 1XME closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTI's edge.
- 2XME's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate VTI's advantage entirely.
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 5 of 6 windows| Metric | VTI | XME |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.3% | -2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.5% | -0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.3% | -11.6% |
| Year to date | 13.1% | -2.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.6% | 1.5% |
Technicals
VTI has the stronger structure| Metric | VTI | XME |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.4 | 42.9 |
| ADX (14) | 14.8 | 26.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.6% | -10.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.6% | -10.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10.3% | 33.5% |
Risk
VTI is the more resilient| Metric | VTI | XME |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.85 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 1 | 0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -27.7% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -23.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 37.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VTI and XME?
XME puts 80% of its assets in Basic Materials, while VTI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
How much do VTI and XME overlap?
VTI and XME share 0.59% of their weighted exposure across 38 common holdings. 3,461 holdings are unique to VTI, and 1 holding is unique to XME. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, VTI or XME?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 41 for XME.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.35% for XME.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VTI, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.04% against 0.34% for XME.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XME has been more volatile over the past year, at 37.4% annualized against 13% for VTI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VTI fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -25.4% against -37.3% for XME.
Compare VTI and XME 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.