VTI vs XYLD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VTI and XYLD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF, while XYLD is Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 507 for XYLD. XYLD is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTI ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 48.
What is the main difference between VTI and XYLD?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to XYLD's 507, and 88% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | VTI | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.6% |
| Holdings | 3,524 | 507 |
| Top-10 concentration | 33.2% | 38% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.05% | 10.24% |
| Average volume | 3,115,564 | 625,833 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.8% | +4.9% |
| YTD return | +12.5% | +1.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.4% | +7.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 7.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -6.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.4% | -18.7% |
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 0.06 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 48/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 51/100 | 44/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 86/100 | 74/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF vs Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF
VTI leads
VTI leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support VTI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTI over XYLD, 60 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. VTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. VTI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTI today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 12 points over 30 sessions. VTI leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF and Global X - S&P 500 Covered Call ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VTI vs XYLD: 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 | XYLD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.6% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3,524 | 507 | VTI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 33.2% | 38% | VTI |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.05% | 10.24% | XYLD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.4% | -18.7% | XYLD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13% | 7.5% | XYLD |
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 XYLD 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.
- Quality74 vs 52VTI +22
- Risk Resilience86 vs 74VTI +12
- Value42 vs 35VTI +7
- Momentum51 vs 44VTI +7
4 of 4 evidence groups favor VTI. VTI’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
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 — VTI and XYLD 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 | XYLD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.6% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3,524 | 507 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,115,564 | 625,833 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 7.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -6.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.47 | 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 XYLD share 87.96% of their weighted exposure across 501 common holdings.
2,998 holdings are unique to VTI, and 3 holdings are unique to XYLD. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
XYLD is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 38% of the fund, against 33.24% for VTI (507 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 | XYLD | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 6.4% | 7.97% | 6.4% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 6.29% | 7.36% | 6.29% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 4.79% | 5.55% | 4.79% |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.65% | 3.79% | 3.65% |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC-CL A | 2.9% | 2.99% | 2.9% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.56% | 2.58% | 2.56% |
| GOOGALPHABET INC-CL C | 2.31% | 2.39% | 2.31% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC | 1.7% | 2.15% | 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 XYLD doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| SNOWSnowflake Inc | 0.13% | Not held |
| NETCloudflare Inc | 0.12% | Not held |
| SPCXSpace Exploration Technologies Corp | 0.09% | Not held |
| BEBloom Energy Corp | 0.08% | Not held |
| LNGCheniere Energy Inc | 0.08% | Not held |
| EAElectronic Arts Inc | 0.07% | Not held |
What XYLD adds that VTI doesn’t
| Holding | XYLD | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| GXLCGLOBAL X US 500 ETF | 0.11% | Not held |
| NXPINXP SEMICONDUCTORS NV | 0.09% | Not held |
| MRNAMODERNA INC | 0.08% | 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 XYLD: five-year payout growth
VTI grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.28% a year against XYLD's 3.02%. VTI never reduced its annual distribution in the window; XYLD did in 2 years.
| Dividend metric | VTI | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.28% | 3.02% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.770 | $3.681 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.757 | $4.271 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #81 of 138 | #2 of 3 |
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
4 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 | 60 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VTI | Value 42 vs 35 |
| Technicals | VTI | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 5.3% vs 1.5% |
| Risk Resilience | VTI | Risk Resilience 86 vs 74 |
| 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 XYLD 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)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTI +12
- 60 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- VTI +2
- 59 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- VTI +6
- 60 vs 54
- 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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VTI
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only XYLD
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, 52-Week High Proximity, 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.34%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1XYLD closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTI's edge.
- 2XYLD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 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 5 of 6 windows| Metric | VTI | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.1% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.2% | 1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.4% | 4.2% |
| Year to date | 12.5% | 1.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.8% | 4.9% |
Technicals
VTI has the stronger structure| Metric | VTI | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 45.2 |
| ADX (14) | 13.4 | 14.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.3% | 1.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.8% | 4.9% |
Risk
VTI is the more resilient| Metric | VTI | XYLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 0.06 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -6.6% |
| Current drawdown | -1.9% | -1.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 7.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -0.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VTI and XYLD?
VTI holds 3,524 positions to XYLD's 507, and 88% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do VTI and XYLD overlap?
VTI and XYLD share 87.96% of their weighted exposure across 501 common holdings. 2,998 holdings are unique to VTI, and 3 holdings are unique to XYLD. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, VTI or XYLD?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 507 for XYLD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.6% for XYLD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
XYLD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 10.24% against 1.05% for VTI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VTI has been more volatile over the past year, at 13% annualized against 7.5% for XYLD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
XYLD fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -18.7% against -25.4% for VTI.
Compare VTI and XYLD 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.