BWG vs VTI
BWG vs VTI
BrandywineGLOBAL Global Income Opportunities Fund Inc 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 | BWG | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 2.66% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $142M | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 11.05% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 110 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | -0.22% | +14.20% | |
| 1Y Return | +2.61% | +24.16% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.44% | +21.12% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.97% | +12.37% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.5% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -58.8% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Fixed Income | Equity | |
| Inception | Mar 28, 2012 | May 24, 2001 |
BWG vs VTI Performance
BrandywineGLOBAL Global Income Opportunities Fund Inc (BWG) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year BWG returned +2.61% while VTI returned +24.16%. Year to date, BWG is down 0.22% versus a gain of 14.20% for VTI.
Over three years, BWG compounded at +10.44% per year against +21.12% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +1.97% and +12.37% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.14% annualized vs -2.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
BWG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.5% compared with 15.3% for VTI. 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 -58.8% for BWG 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 0.67. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BWG charges 2.66% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $266 vs $3 annually, a gap of $263 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BWG currently yields 11.05% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
BWG and VTI share 0 holdings out of 2852 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, BWG or VTI?
BWG has an expense ratio of 2.66% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $263 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BWG or VTI?
Over the past year BWG returned +2.61% vs +24.16% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), BWG annualized -2.29% vs +8.14% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BWG or VTI?
BWG has been the more volatile fund at 15.5% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: BWG -58.8% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both BWG and VTI?
BWG and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.67, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between BWG and VTI?
BWG and VTI share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2852 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BWG or VTI?
BWG yields 11.05% while VTI yields 1.07%, so BWG 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.