BGRN vs VTI
BGRN vs VTI
iShares USD Green Bond ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BGRN | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.20% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $501M | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 4.28% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 322 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +0.09% | +14.20% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.34% | +24.16% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +4.89% | +21.12% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +0.16% | +12.37% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 5.5% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -19.2% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Nov 13, 2018 | May 24, 2001 |
BGRN vs VTI Performance
iShares USD Green Bond ETF (BGRN) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year BGRN returned +2.34% while VTI returned +24.16%. Year to date, BGRN is up 0.09% versus a gain of 14.20% for VTI.
Over three years, BGRN compounded at +4.89% per year against +21.12% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +0.16% and +12.37% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.14% annualized vs +1.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VTI has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 5.5% for BGRN. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -19.2% for BGRN and -56.6% for VTI. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.51. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BGRN charges 0.20% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $20 vs $3 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BGRN currently yields 4.28% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
BGRN and VTI share 0 holdings out of 2995 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BGRN or VTI?
BGRN has an expense ratio of 0.20% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $17 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BGRN or VTI?
Over the past year BGRN returned +2.34% vs +24.16% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), BGRN annualized +1.48% vs +8.14% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BGRN or VTI?
VTI has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 5.5% for BGRN. Worst drawdown: BGRN -19.2% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both BGRN and VTI?
BGRN and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.51, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BGRN and VTI?
BGRN and VTI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2995 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BGRN or VTI?
BGRN yields 4.28% while VTI yields 1.07%, so BGRN currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.