•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Both ETFs target the U.S. consumer staples sector, but their approaches and price points differ meaningfully. The comparison below reviews cost structures, risk measures, recent performance, and portfolio construction to help investors evaluate which fund may better fit a defensive allocation.
RSPS (Invesco) and FSTA (Fidelity) both provide exposure to consumer staples, but they differ sharply on fees and fund size.
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500 and is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-year return reflects total return over the trailing 12 months.
Over a longer horizon, the funds show different drawdown profiles and different growth outcomes.
FSTA tracks the MSCI USA IMI Consumer Staples Index and holds 97 stocks, with 99% of assets allocated to consumer staples names. The fund is over 12 years old and is heavily weighted toward large sector leaders. Walmart (WMT), Costco Wholesale (COST), and Procter & Gamble (PG) together make up over one-third of assets.
RSPS equally weights 38 stocks from the S&P 500, which results in less concentration risk. Top holdings include Bunge Global SA (BG), Colgate-Palmolive (CL), and Church & Dwight (CHD), with each holding at approximately 3% of the portfolio. The equal-weight strategy spreads sector exposure more evenly and avoids outsize bets on mega-cap staples. Neither fund uses leverage, hedging, or ESG screens.
Both ETFs provide exposure to consumer staples, a group often viewed as defensive during periods of market volatility or economic softness. The funds focus on everyday essentials such as food and cleaning supplies.
FSTA’s fee advantage is substantial. With an expense ratio of 0.08%, it is far lower than RSPS’s 0.40%. While the difference may appear modest over a single year, it can compound over longer holding periods.
FSTA has also delivered stronger results over the past five years. The article notes that RSPS has trailed FSTA by over 30 percentage points during that stretch, which does not support RSPS’s higher cost.
RSPS’s main advantage is its higher dividend yield of 2.5% versus FSTA’s 2.0%. However, the 0.50% higher expense ratio for RSPS is described as largely offsetting the yield difference over time.
The article attributes part of FSTA’s strong performance to its concentration in Costco and Walmart, which have performed well. At the same time, it highlights that having over 20% of the fund in these two stocks could contribute to higher volatility. For investors prioritizing greater stability, RSPS’s equal-weighted structure may be more appealing.
Overall, the difference in concentration is presented as a key deciding factor: investors seeking a more even distribution of exposure may lean toward RSPS, while those comfortable with larger weights in major staples leaders may prefer FSTA.
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
