What are the specific fees associated with these ETFs?

FSTA charges an expense ratio of 0.08%, while VDC has a slightly higher fee of 0.09%. These costs are deducted from fund assets annually, impacting the net return you receive. While a 0.01% difference seems negligible, it accumulates over time. For every $10,000 invested, the difference amounts to one dollar per year. Lower expense ratios generally provide a slight advantage in long-term wealth accumulation by reducing the drag on your investment. Always compare fees alongside other factors like scale and history.

What does it mean that index data is not available for these funds?

The specific index each fund tracks is currently not available in the provided data. This limits your ability to assess precise tracking error or compare the exact methodology against alternative benchmarks. Without knowing the underlying index, it is difficult to verify how closely the ETF replicates its target sector. Investors should be aware that identical holdings do not necessarily imply identical index construction or rebalancing rules, which can affect future performance and diversification characteristics.

How does inception date affect the evaluation of an ETF?

Inception date refers to when the fund began trading. VDC launched in January 2004, providing over 20 years of history across various economic cycles. FSTA started in October 2013, offering a shorter track record. A longer history allows investors to observe how the fund behaved during different market conditions, such as recessions or inflation spikes. While past performance does not guarantee future results, a longer data series provides more evidence of the fund's resilience and operational stability.

How do the net assets of FSTA and VDC differ?

VDC holds $7.8 billion in net assets, significantly larger than FSTA's $1.4 billion. Greater asset scale often supports tighter bid-ask spreads and higher liquidity, making it easier to trade large volumes without impacting the price. While FSTA's size is sufficient for efficient trading, it is smaller than the market leader in this space. Investors typically value high liquidity for ease of entry and exit, though both funds are established enough for general accessibility.

What is the dividend yield comparison between the two funds?

FSTA offers a dividend yield of 2.27%, whereas VDC provides a yield of 2.15%. Yield represents the annual income relative to the price. For income-focused investors, FSTA's slightly higher yield may be attractive, though the difference is modest at 0.12%. It is important to remember that yields fluctuate with share prices and dividend announcements. A higher yield does not automatically equate to better total returns, as capital appreciation and depreciation also play critical roles in overall performance.

Are there concentration risks in these consumer staples ETFs?

Both funds exhibit concentration risk in their top holdings. For FSTA, Walmart and Costco together represent over 25% of the total weight. Similar top-heavy structures exist in VDC, though exact combined percentages for the top two are derived from individual weights. High concentration means that performance is heavily influenced by just a few companies. If Walmart or Costco underperform, the entire ETF's return could suffer. Diversification within the sector is limited by this overlap in the largest positions.

How similar are the top holdings in these two funds?

The top 10 holdings for both FSTA and VDC are identical: WMT, COST, PG, KO, PM, PEP, MO, MDLZ, TGT, and CL. However, the weighting varies slightly. For example, Costco is 11.57% in FSTA but 11.99% in VDC. Walmart is 13.85% in FSTA and 13.34% in VDC. Despite minor differences in allocation, the exposure is highly correlated. This means investors in either fund are essentially buying the same leading companies in the consumer staples sector.

How do expense ratios impact long-term investment returns?

Expense ratios represent annual management fees. The 0.01% difference between FSTA and VDC may seem small, but it compounds over time. Lower fees leave more capital invested, potentially increasing the power of compound growth. Over decades, this small advantage can result in a measurable difference in the final portfolio value. While fees are important, they should be considered alongside tracking accuracy and liquidity. A low-fee fund that poorly tracks its index may underperform a slightly more expensive but accurate fund.

Which fund has a better liquidity profile based on size?

VDC's net assets of $7.8 billion suggest a stronger liquidity profile compared to FSTA's $1.4 billion. Larger funds typically have higher trading volumes, which reduces bid-ask spreads—the difference between the buying and selling price. Tighter spreads lower transaction costs for investors. While FSTA is sufficiently scaled for most retail investors, VDC's exceptional size may offer marginal advantages for those trading larger blocks of shares or seeking the most efficient execution in volatile markets.

What is the significance of the issuer reputation in this comparison?

VDC is managed by Vanguard, which has a long-established history of low-cost index management. FSTA is managed by Fidelity, also a major issuer with competitive pricing. While issuer reputation does not guarantee performance, it often reflects operational experience and resources. Both funds belong to the Consumer Defensive category. Choosing between them may depend on personal preference for the issuer's ecosystem or perceived reliability, but both are well-regarded in the index fund industry.

Which fund might suit an income-focused investor?

An investor prioritising passive income might find FSTA's 2.27% dividend yield slightly more attractive than VDC's 2.15%. However, this difference is marginal. Both funds provide exposure to consumer staples, a sector often associated with stable dividends. Practical considerations should include the frequency of distributions and tax implications, which are not detailed here. Investors should look at their total return objectives rather than yield alone, ensuring the chosen fund aligns with their broader asset allocation strategy.

Disclaimer regarding this educational content

This comparison is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. The data provided is based on facts from specific sources and may not reflect real-time changes. Index data is not available for either fund, limiting the assessment of tracking accuracy. Investors should conduct their own due diligence, considering individual financial circumstances, risk tolerance, and investment goals. Always consult a qualified financial professional before making investment decisions to ensure suitability and compliance with local regulations.

FSTA vs VDC

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

Compare Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples ETF (FSTA) and Consumer Staples Vanguard ETF (VDC). This page examines fees, holdings, dividends, and how each fund tracks its market. Note that index data is not available. Educational content, not financial advice.

Compare Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples ETF (FSTA) and Consumer Staples Vanguard ETF (VDC). This page examines fees, holdings, dividends, and how each fund tracks its market. Note that index data is no...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

FSTA

Metric

VDC

0.08%

Expense Ratio

0.09%

2.27%

Dividend Yield

2.15%

$1.41B

Net Assets

$7.76B

99

Holdings

108

Oct 21, 2013

Inception Date

Jan 26, 2004

–

Index Tracked

–

Consumer Defensive

Fund Category

Consumer Defensive

FSTA costs about $1.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	FSTA	VDC
WMTWalmart Inc.	13.85%	13.34%
COSTCostco Wholesale Corporation	11.57%	11.99%
PGThe Procter & Gamble Company	9.77%	9.43%
KOThe Coca-Cola Company	9.74%	9.63%
PMPhilip Morris International Inc.	4.69%	4.53%
PEPPepsiCo, Inc.	4.38%	4.52%
MOAltria Group, Inc.	3.88%	3.74%
MDLZMondelez International, Inc.	2.70%	2.65%
TGTTarget Corporation	2.48%	2.44%
CLColgate-Palmolive Company	2.28%	2.29%

Discover More Comparisons

FSTA vs XLP

Compare FSTA and XLP consumer staples ETFs. We examine fees, holdings, dividends, tracking, and key differences to help you research both options.

FSTA vs SCHD

Compare FSTA and SCHD ETFs. Review expense ratios, holdings, yields, and tracking methods to evaluate these consumer staples and dividend funds side by side.

FSTA vs IYK

Compare FSTA and IYK ETFs. Review expense ratios of 0.08% and 0.37%, dividend yields of 2.27% and 2.62%, top holdings, and track record differences.

Investment Analysis

FSTA

Pros

Fidelity manages this ETF at a low 0.08% expense ratio, reducing the annual drag on net investor returns relative to many active funds.
The fund holds $1.4 billion in net assets, offering sufficient scale for efficient trading while remaining smaller than its largest competitor.
Investors receive a 2.27% dividend yield, slightly higher than comparable sector funds, which may benefit those seeking enhanced passive income.

Considerations

With an inception date of October 2013, the fund lacks the long-term track record available from older consumer staples ETFs launched over a decade earlier.
The fund's index methodology is not available, limiting the ability to assess precise tracking error or compare it directly to alternative benchmarked products.
Concentration risks exist as the top two holdings, Walmart and Costco, together represent over 25% of the total fund weight, limiting diversification.

VDC

Pros

Managed by Vanguard, the fund is supported by a strong corporate reputation and a long-established history of low-cost index management in the sector.
With $7.8 billion in net assets, the fund benefits from exceptional scale, which typically supports tighter bid-ask spreads and high liquidity for trading.
The fund has an inception date of January 2004, providing more than 20 years of history to observe performance during various economic cycles.

Considerations

The 0.09% expense ratio is marginally higher than the competitor's 0.08% fee, creating a slightly greater annual cost to investors holding the fund.
A dividend yield of 2.15% is lower than the alternative fund's 2.27%, potentially reducing attractiveness for income-focused investors prioritising distribution levels.
Similar to the competitor, the index tracked is not available, creating an information gap regarding the specific benchmark methodology and precise replication accuracy.

Related Market Insights

When Government Shutdowns Strike: Why Consumer Staples Could Be Your Portfolio's Best Defence

Navigate government shutdown fears with consumer staples. Discover how essential goods companies like PepsiCo & P&G offer portfolio stability & defence during economic uncertainty. Invest with Nemo.