EFG vs VTI
EFG vs VTI
iShares MSCI EAFE Growth 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 | EFG | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.34% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $16.3B | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.24% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 380 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +5.43% | +10.14% | |
| 1Y Return | +14.77% | +19.82% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.10% | +18.94% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +3.62% | +11.79% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.9% | 15.4% | |
| Max Drawdown | -58.9% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 1, 2005 | May 24, 2001 |
EFG vs VTI Performance
iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF (EFG) 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 EFG returned +14.77% while VTI returned +19.82%. Year to date, EFG is up 5.43% versus a gain of 10.14% for VTI.
Over three years, EFG compounded at +10.10% per year against +18.94% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +3.62% and +11.79% respectively. Across the full 21-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +7.99% annualized vs +6.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EFG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.9% compared with 15.4% 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 -58.9% for EFG 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 0.86. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EFG charges 0.34% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $34 vs $3 annually, a gap of $31 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EFG currently yields 2.24% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
EFG and VTI share 5 holdings out of 3135 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.1% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in EFG | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| DG | 0.60% | 0.03% | 0.57% |
| SUNB | 0.27% | 0.04% | 0.23% |
| IRM | 0.20% | 0.05% | 0.15% |
| ICUI | Pro | Pro | Pro |
| AM | Pro | Pro | Pro |
See all 5 holdings EFG shares with VTI Exact weights in each fund and the difference, for every overlapping position. Get FundXLS Pro: $29/moFirst 500 subscribers, then $49/mo. Cancel anytime. | |||
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EFG or VTI?
EFG has an expense ratio of 0.34% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $31 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EFG or VTI?
Over the past year EFG returned +14.77% vs +19.82% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (21 years), EFG annualized +6.11% vs +7.99% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EFG or VTI?
EFG has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 15.4% for VTI. Worst drawdown: EFG -58.9% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both EFG and VTI?
EFG and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.86, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EFG and VTI?
EFG and VTI share 5 common holdings with a 0.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 3135 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EFG or VTI?
EFG yields 2.24% while VTI yields 1.07%, so EFG 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.