SPY and IVV track the same index, but differences in liquidity and cost make one better for trading and the other better for long holding periodsExpense-conscious investors and active traders may each find a clear favorite between these two S&P 500 giants.iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) and SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) both aim to replicate the S&P 500, but IVV stands out for its lower annual cost, while SPY is renowned for its unmatched trading liquidity.Both IVV and SPY are giants in the exchange-traded fu ...

基金概况与策略差异 - Vanguard信息技术ETF提供广泛的科技行业敞口，持有超过300只科技相关股票，而iShares半导体ETF则专注于美国半导体股票，仅持有30只领先公司股票 [2] - VGT的前三大持仓为英伟达、苹果和微软，占资产相当大一部分，且拥有近22年历史，反映其长期稳定性 [6] - SOXX是纯粹的半导体追踪基金，前三大持仓为博通、超微半导体和英伟达，为寻求精确投资美国芯片制造商的投资者提供集中的行业倾斜 [7] 成本、规模与收益特征 - VGT的管理费率为0.09%，显著低于SOXX的0.34% [3] - SOXX的资产规模为167亿美元，而VGT的资产规模高达1300亿美元，是前者的近8倍 [3] - SOXX的股息收益率为0.55%，高于VGT的0.41% [3][4] - SOXX的1年期总回报率（截至2025年12月16日）为41.81%，远高于VGT的16.10% [3] 风险与波动性表现 - SOXX的5年期月度贝塔值为1.77，表明其价格波动性显著高于标普500指数；VGT的贝塔值为1.33，波动性相对较低 [3] - SOXX在过去5年的最大回撤为-45.75%，比VGT的-35.08%更为剧烈 [5] - 投资1000美元在5年内的增长，SOXX为2346美元，VGT为2154美元 [5] 投资含义与适用性 - VGT持有股票数量是SOXX的10倍以上，投资组合更为广泛，而SOXX则紧密聚焦于美国半导体公司 [9][10] - 更大的分散化可能既是优势也是阻碍，VGT近年来价格波动较小，最大回撤更温和，贝塔值更低，在市场波动时可能更具优势 [11] - VGT更低的费用率对注重成本控制的投资者有优势，而SOXX更高的股息收益率可能对收入驱动型投资者更具吸引力 [4]

Fund size, stock coverage, and trading flexibility set these two ultra-low-cost ETFs apart for investors prioritizing scale and liquidity.The State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 1500 Composite Stock Market ETF (SPTM +0.88%) and the iShares Core SP Total US Stock Market ETF (ITOT +0.90%) stand out for their broad U.S. equity exposure, near-identical costs, and very similar performance and sector makeup, with ITOT offering greater scale and liquidity.Both SPTM and ITOT aim to track the total U.S. stock market acr ...

With matching costs and portfolios, the real distinction between these S&P 500 ETFs comes down to scale and investor preferences.The iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV +0.88%) and the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO +0.89%) are nearly indistinguishable in terms of cost, performance, and portfolio composition. VOO, however, stands out for its sheer scale, with significantly greater assets under management.Both IVV and VOO replicate the S&P 500 (^GSPC +0.88%)index, aiming to capture the performance of the 500 largest pu ...

Explore how differences in sector exposure, risk, and yield shape the appeal of these two popular Vanguard ETFs for investors.Both the Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK +1.44%) and the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO +0.89%) are passively managed Vanguard funds aimed at U.S. large-cap equity exposure, but their strategies differ: MGK tilts toward high-growth mega-cap stocks, while VOO mirrors the full S&P 500. This comparison examines cost, returns, risk, sector tilt, and portfolio construction to help clarify wh ...

Explore how differences in cost, yield, and sector focus may impact your choice between these two leading tech ETFs.The State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLK +2.16%) stands out for its lower costs and slightly higher yield, while the iShares US Technology ETF (IYW +1.91%) offers broader exposure across more holdings and a minor sector tilt.Both XLK and IYW aim to capture the performance of U.S. technology stocks, but they take slightly different approaches. XLK focuses on the S&P 500's technol ...

Explore how sector balance, yield, and risk profiles set these two Vanguard ETFs apart for investors seeking different strategies.Vanguard Growth ETF (VUG +1.38%) emphasizes large-cap growth stocks with a tech tilt, while Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO +0.89%) delivers broader, more diversified U.S. equity exposure, a higher yield, and a marginally lower expense ratio.Both VUG and VOO are passively managed by Vanguard, but they serve distinct purposes: VUG targets large-cap growth stocks, concentrating on techno ...

文章核心观点 - 文章对比了两只专注于美国科技行业的交易所交易基金：State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLK) 和 Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF (FTEC) 两者在投资目标、费用和核心持仓上高度相似，但在投资组合广度、资产规模、流动性和持股集中度方面存在关键差异 [4][5][6][9] 基金概况与持仓结构 - XLK追踪标普500指数中的科技板块，持有70家公司，持仓高度集中于巨头，其前三大持仓英伟达、苹果和微软合计占资产超过三分之一 [2] - FTEC覆盖更广泛的美国科技公司，持有294只证券，包含一些标普500指数以外的小型公司，提供了额外的多元化 [1][7] - 两只基金的前三大持仓均为英伟达、微软和苹果，但各自权重不同，FTEC中英伟达权重更高，而微软和苹果的个体权重较低 [1] - 两只基金的行业敞口几乎完全相同 [1] 财务表现与成本 - 两只基金的费用率相同，均为0.08%，成本差异可忽略不计 [3][6] - XLK的过去一年总回报率略高于FTEC，股息收益率也略高 [3] - XLK的资产管理规模远大于FTEC，达到956亿美元，而FTEC为166亿美元 [8] - XLK拥有27年的历史记录，是现存最古老的行业ETF之一，其庞大的资产规模使其成为流动性最高的科技基金之一 [2][5] 主要差异与投资者考量 - 主要差异体现在投资组合广度、资产管理规模和流动性上 [4][5] - FTEC持有近300只证券，是XLK（70只）的4倍多，提供了更广泛的多元化 [7] - XLK凭借其显著更高的资产管理规模，在流动性方面具有轻微优势 [5][8] - 对于关注费用的投资者而言，收益率和流动性是主要的区分因素 [3] - 尽管存在差异，但对于长期看好科技行业增长的投资者而言，任何一只基金都是可靠的投资工具 [9]

文章核心观点 - 文章对比了嘉信国际股票ETF(SCHF)和安硕核心MSCI EAFE ETF(IEFA)这两只投资于美国以外发达市场的ETF 主要差异体现在费用率、股息收益率和持股数量上 而两者在持仓结构、行业配置和近期业绩表现上高度相似 [4][5][8] 基金概况与投资目标 - 嘉信国际股票ETF(SCHF)追踪富时发达(除美国)指数 旨在提供广泛的多元化国际敞口并保持低成本 [4] - 安硕核心MSCI EAFE ETF(IEFA)追踪MSCI EAFE指数 覆盖更广泛的国家和公司数量 [4] - 两只ETF均投资于美国以外的发达市场 并持有一些最大的非美国公司 例如ASML和罗氏 [5][6] 投资组合构成 - 嘉信国际股票ETF(SCHF)持有1,501家公司 行业配置侧重于金融服务业(24%)、工业(19%)和科技(11%) 前三大持仓为阿斯麦、三星电子和罗氏控股 [1] - 安硕核心MSCI EAFE ETF(IEFA)持有2,600只股票 行业配置侧重于金融服务业(22%)、工业(20%)和医疗保健(10%) 前三大持仓为阿斯麦、阿斯利康和罗氏控股 [2] - 两只基金在金融服务公司的总敞口比例相近 约为22%-24% [6] 成本与收益特征 - 嘉信国际股票ETF(SCHF)的费用率显著更低 为0.03% 而安硕核心MSCI EAFE ETF(IEFA)的费用率为0.07% [3][7] - 嘉信国际股票ETF(SCHF)提供更高的股息收益率 为3.5% 而安硕核心MSCI EAFE ETF(IEFA)的股息收益率为2.9% [7] 风险与业绩表现 - 两只基金的风险和业绩指标高度相似 截至2025年12月12日的过去一年总回报率均约为22% 五年最大回撤也几乎相同 约为-30% [6] - Beta值是衡量相对于标普500指数价格波动性的指标 基于五年周回报计算 [3]

Key Points SPYM and VOO track the same S&P 500 benchmark and deliver nearly identical performance and sector exposure. VOO commands far greater assets under management at $1.5 trillion compared to SPYM's $101.2 billion. Both funds have ultra-low expense ratios (SPYM at 0.02%, VOO at 0.03%) and yield the same payout at 1.1%, so yield is not a differentiator. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT:SPYM) and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT:VOO) b ...