•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Subtle differences in fees, yield, and fund structure set the Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (VDC) and the Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF (FSTA) apart for investors with specific priorities. Both funds target the U.S. consumer staples sector by tracking similar baskets of companies that produce essential, nondiscretionary goods.
Key metrics for the two consumer staples ETFs show modest differences in pricing and income, alongside a major gap in assets under management (AUM):
FSTA is slightly more affordable and pays a marginally higher dividend yield. The differences are small, but they may matter for investors focused on cost efficiency or income.
On return and downside behavior, the funds are extremely close:
Both ETFs show similar volatility characteristics, consistent with their matching beta readings.
Despite the small differences in fund structure, the holdings are broadly aligned around consumer defensive companies.
FSTA tracks the MSCI USA IMI Consumer Staples 25/50 Index and holds 96 stocks. Its largest positions include Costco Wholesale, Walmart, and Procter & Gamble. The fund is described as having no significant sector or thematic quirks, and it has a 12-year history.
VDC follows a comparable consumer defensive approach and holds 105 holdings. Its top stocks are Walmart, Costco Wholesale, and Procter & Gamble, closely mirroring FSTA’s leading names.
VDC and FSTA are nearly identical across most meaningful dimensions. They have produced almost the same one- and five-year total returns and maximum drawdowns, indicating similar performance and volatility.
Because the funds share similar underlying exposure and overlapping top holdings, the portfolio profiles are also remarkably alike. VDC holds a handful more stocks than FSTA, but that difference has not translated into a noticeable divergence in risk or performance based on the provided metrics.
One potentially more practical difference is AUM. VDC’s $9.1 billion compared with FSTA’s $1.4 billion may translate into greater liquidity and easier trading for larger orders. While this may not affect many everyday investors, it is a factor to consider given the similarity between the two ETFs.
Finally, FSTA’s slight advantage in expense ratio (0.08% vs. 0.09%) and dividend yield (2.18% vs. 2.10%) could have a long-term impact, even if the gap is modest.
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…
