Updated 14 October 2026. Holdings, sectors and trailing returns use a common 30 June 2026 reporting date. Calendar-year returns cover 2021–2025.
VTI and SPTM both offer a simple way to own a broad basket of US stocks. Their fees are equally low and many of their biggest investments overlap. The main difference is how far each fund reaches into the market.
VTI aims for more complete US-market coverage. SPTM follows the S&P Composite 1500, combining large-, mid- and small-cap indexes. Both can serve as a US equity holding, but neither gives you a complete global portfolio.
VTI vs SPTM at a glance
| Feature | VTI | SPTM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund name | Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF | State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 1500 Composite Stock Market ETF |
| Benchmark | Morningstar US Total Market, formerly CRSP | S&P Composite 1500 |
| Coverage | Approximately 100% of the investable US equity market | Approximately 90% of the investable US equity market |
| Reported stocks / holdings | 3,531 | 1,512 |
| Style | Broad market: growth and value | Broad market: growth and value |
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| Inception | 24 May 2001 | 4 October 2000 |
| Dividend schedule | Quarterly | Quarterly |
VTI’s name now includes “Morningstar”, following the 2026 rebranding of the CRSP index family. The ticker remains VTI; the June factsheet uses the earlier name.
What does the difference in coverage mean?
SPTM combines the S&P 500, S&P MidCap 400 and S&P SmallCap 600. Those indexes apply eligibility rules, including profitability requirements for additions. VTI reaches further into the smaller-company end of the market. See State Street’s SPTM page for SPTM’s benchmark rules.
Both give larger companies more influence. Adding thousands of small positions does not make VTI an equal-weight portfolio, nor does it guarantee higher returns. Smaller companies can help in some market environments and lag in others.
SPTM has tracked the S&P Composite 1500 since January 2020. Its longer fund history includes other benchmarks, so a ten-year return is not ten years of the current index strategy.
Fees are tied
| Investment value | VTI annual expense | SPTM annual expense |
|---|---|---|
| US$10,000 | US$3 | US$3 |
| US$50,000 | US$15 | US$15 |
| US$100,000 | US$30 | US$30 |
These expenses are deducted from fund assets rather than billed separately. With no fee advantage between them, your broker’s commissions, currency conversion charges and bid–ask spread may matter more to the cost of a purchase.
Fund size alone does not determine how easily you can trade an ETF. The liquidity of its underlying investments and the actual prices available when you trade also matter. Check the spread rather than assuming the larger fund always gives a better deal.
Top 10 holdings: watch how share classes are counted
The issuers present these lists differently. Vanguard combines Alphabet’s share classes into one company; State Street lists them separately. The totals below therefore describe different sets of positions and should not be used as a direct concentration ranking.
| Rank | VTI company | Weight | SPTM security | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NVIDIA | 6.4% | NVIDIA | 6.92% |
| 2 | Apple | 5.9% | Apple | 6.07% |
| 3 | Alphabet (combined) | 5.2% | Microsoft | 3.96% |
| 4 | Microsoft | 3.8% | Amazon | 3.33% |
| 5 | Amazon | 3.2% | Alphabet Class A | 2.99% |
| 6 | Broadcom | 2.5% | Broadcom | 2.56% |
| 7 | Micron Technology | 1.8% | Alphabet Class C | 2.38% |
| 8 | Meta Platforms | 1.7% | Micron Technology | 1.86% |
| 9 | Tesla | 1.6% | Meta Platforms | 1.76% |
| 10 | Eli Lilly | 1.4% | Tesla | 1.69% |
| Top 10 total | Company basis | 33.4% | Security basis | 33.52% |
The shared names explain why owning both adds relatively little diversification. You would hold many of the same large businesses twice, through two funds. The useful question is whether VTI’s additional market coverage is something you want, rather than how many ETF tickers you own.
Sector exposure: different classification systems
VTI’s factsheet uses ICB sectors, while SPTM uses GICS. The columns below show their published categories independently; rows are not equivalent sector matches. In particular, do not subtract “Technology” and “Information Technology” to measure the difference in underlying exposure.
| VTI sector (ICB) | Weight | SPTM sector (GICS) | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | 41.0% | Information Technology | 36.18% |
| Industrials | 12.5% | Financials | 12.11% |
| Consumer Discretionary | 12.3% | Industrials | 10.09% |
| Financials | 10.0% | Consumer Discretionary | 9.54% |
| Health Care | 9.1% | Communication Services | 9.07% |
| Consumer Staples | 3.4% | Health Care | 8.98% |
| Energy | 3.2% | Consumer Staples | 4.48% |
| Utilities | 2.5% | Energy | 3.07% |
| Real Estate | 2.3% | Utilities | 2.19% |
| Telecommunications | 2.1% | Real Estate | 2.17% |
| Basic Materials | 1.6% | Materials | 2.12% |
| Other | 0.0% | Not separately shown | — |
Returns over matching periods
These issuer-reported figures use net asset value (NAV), which measures the fund’s underlying assets per share. They are USD total returns after fund expenses, with distributions reinvested and before personal taxes. Multi-year returns are annualized.
| Period ending 30 June 2026 | VTI | SPTM |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 year to date | 11.07% | 10.78% |
| 1 year | 23.16% | 22.69% |
| 3 years, annualized | 20.43% | 20.15% |
| 5 years, annualized | 12.24% | 12.98% |
| 10 years, annualized | 15.04% | 15.20% |
The results are close, and the leader changes with the period. Broader coverage did not consistently produce a higher return. Small historical differences are a weak reason to keep switching between funds.
What would US$10,000 have grown to?
| Holding period ending 30 June 2026 | VTI | SPTM |
|---|---|---|
| 3 years | US$17,466 | US$17,345 |
| 5 years | US$17,813 | US$18,408 |
| 10 years | US$40,597 | US$41,165 |
Each row starts with one US$10,000 investment and assumes reinvestment, with no extra contributions or withdrawals. Values are rounded to the nearest dollar and are approximate because the source returns are rounded. Personal taxes, trading costs and currency conversion are excluded. A Singapore investor’s SGD result also depends on USD/SGD movements.
Calendar-year returns: neither avoids market losses
| Year | VTI | SPTM |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 25.67% | 28.58% |
| 2022 | −19.51% | −17.75% |
| 2023 | 26.05% | 25.54% |
| 2024 | 23.81% | 23.87% |
| 2025 | 17.10% | 16.92% |
Diversifying across companies reduces reliance on any one business. It does not protect you from a broad market decline. Both funds lost substantial value in 2022, and similar past behaviour does not guarantee identical future risk.
Which fund makes more sense?
| Your priority | What to consider |
|---|---|
| More complete US stock-market coverage | VTI reaches further into the smaller-company universe. |
| The S&P 1500 approach | SPTM combines three established size-based indexes. |
| Lowest annual expense ratio | They are tied at 0.03%. |
| Adding diversification to an existing US broad-market fund | The overlap may make a second fund unnecessary. |
| Already own one | Check costs and your reason for switching; recent returns alone are not enough. |
| Global diversification or lower portfolio volatility | Look beyond this pair to other regions and asset classes. |
For someone starting from scratch who wants broad US exposure, VTI is a reasonable default because of its more complete coverage. SPTM is also a low-cost option when its S&P 1500 selection approach suits your needs. There is no clear fee-based reason to favour one.
The bigger decisions are how much US equity risk to take, whether you also need international investments, and how much cash or bonds to keep for nearer-term spending. Those choices are likely to matter more than a small performance gap between these two funds.
Singapore-based investors should also consider fund domicile and tax treatment. My S&P 500 ETF guide discusses those considerations alongside fund costs.
This article is for general information and is not personal financial advice. Investments can lose value, and past performance does not guarantee future results.
