By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is neutral, highlighting that the choice between VOO and SPY depends on the investor's time horizon, trading frequency, and account type. While VOO offers a lower expense ratio, SPY's superior liquidity, options market depth, and institutional support can offset the fee advantage for active traders and large institutional investors.
Risk: Tax-loss harvesting friction and SPY's Unit Investment Trust (UIT) structure creating a cash drag for long-term holders.
Opportunity: VOO's lower expense ratio for long-term, passive retail investors.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF offers a significantly lower expense ratio than State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, providing a cost advantage for long-term investors.
Both funds track the S&P 500 and have demonstrated identical maximum drawdowns of about 27% over the last five years.
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust is the oldest ETF in the United States, while Vanguard S&P 500 ETF manages a larger pool of assets under management.
The primary distinction between Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT:VOO) and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSEMKT:SPY) lies in the expense ratio and the specific liquidity needs of the investor.
For most long-term retail investors, the choice between these two giants often comes down to internal costs and how efficiently the fund tracks its benchmark. While both provide broad-market exposure to the largest companies in the United States, their historical roots and total assets under management differ.
| Metric | SPY | VOO | |---|---|---| | Issuer | SPDR | Vanguard | | Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.03% | | 1-yr return (as of 5/18/26) | 25.7% | 25.8% | | Dividend yield | 1% | 1.1% | | Beta | 1 | 1 | | AUM | $767.7 billion | $1.6 trillion |
The Vanguard fund is more affordable, featuring a 0.03% expense ratio that is one-third the cost of the SPDR trust. Investors might also notice a slightly higher payout from VOO, which currently carries a 1.1% dividend yield. The 0.06 percentage point difference in fees may seem negligible over a single year, but it can compound over decades.
| Metric | SPY | VOO | |---|---|---| | Max drawdown (5 yr) | (27.31%) | (27.87%) | | Growth of $1,000 over 5 years (total return) | $1,920 | $1,925 |
The Vanguard S&P 500 ETF holds 505 positions and was launched in 2010. Its largest positions include Nvidia ** at 7.85%, Apple at 6.45%, and Microsoft **at 4.9%. Its sector exposure includes technology at 35%, financial services at 12%, and communication services at 11%. This fund has a trailing-12-month dividend of $7.13 per share.
The State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust was launched in 1993 and holds 504 securities. Its top holdings include Nvidia at 8.4%, Apple at 7%, and Microsoft at 4.9%. The trust weights technology at 37.35%, financial services at 12%, and communication services at 11%. It paid $7.38 per share over the trailing 12 months.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
An exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 index is one of the most foundational investments you can make. Some famous investors, like Warren Buffett, have even said that most retail investors would be well served to only invest in an S&P 500 index fund. But with several options out there, how should investors choose which S&P 500-tracking fund to add?
Both VOO and SPY track the S&P 500 by its total market capitalization. That means larger, more valuable companies, like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, make up a larger percentage of the fund. The two funds’ max drawdowns, one-year returns, and five-year growth profiles are virtually identical, and their betas are both 1, which makes sense, as beta is a measurement of volatility compared to the benchmark S&P 500.
Ultimately, your choice may come down to the expense ratio, which is the fee that is paid out of your investment to the brokerage that manages the fund. VOO’s fee is 0.03%, while SPY’s is 0.09%. That’s $3 and $9, respectively, on a $10,000 investment, which may not seem like much. But let’s assume you invest $10,000 in one of these funds and add an additional $1,000 every year for 10 years. Assuming an average return of 10%, an investment in SPY would be worth $41,594.80, with fees totaling about $280. That same investment in VOO would be worth $41,781.29 in 10 years, and you would have paid $93.56 in fees.
Before you buy stock in Vanguard S&P 500 ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $481,589! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,345,714!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 993% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 208% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 22, 2026. *
Sarah Sidlow has positions in Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Expense-ratio savings matter most for long-term holders, but SPY's liquidity characteristics can erase that advantage for active or options-using investors."
The article frames VOO's 0.03% expense ratio as a decisive edge over SPY's 0.09%, yet it underplays how SPY's status as the original S&P 500 ETF sustains superior intraday liquidity and tighter spreads that can offset the 6 bp gap for any investor rebalancing or using options. With nearly identical betas, drawdowns, and five-year returns, the real distinction is investor time horizon and trading frequency rather than blanket superiority. VOO's $1.6T AUM already dwarfs SPY, but that scale does not automatically translate to lower total ownership costs once bid-ask friction is included.
For the vast majority of retail buy-and-hold investors the liquidity premium is negligible and the documented fee compounding will still favor VOO over decades regardless of SPY's trading-volume edge.
"Fee comparison alone obscures that VOO and SPY serve different investor segments: retail (VOO wins on cost) versus institutional (SPY's liquidity and derivatives ecosystem offset higher fees)."
The article's fee comparison is arithmetically correct but misleading in scope. Over 10 years, VOO saves ~$186 in fees on a $10k+$1k/yr scenario—real money, but the article ignores that SPY's $767.7B AUM (vs VOO's $1.6T) creates a liquidity moat that matters for large institutional flows and tight bid-ask spreads. SPY's 1993 launch also means deeper options market depth and tighter derivatives pricing. For a $10k retail investor, VOO wins. For a $500M pension rebalance, SPY's execution costs may offset the fee advantage entirely. The article presents this as a consumer choice when it's actually an asset-size decision.
VOO's lower fee is structural and permanent—Vanguard's cost advantage compounds relentlessly, and even modest AUM gaps reverse over time as fee-conscious flows accelerate. SPY's liquidity premium erodes as passive indexing matures and bid-ask spreads compress across all mega-cap ETFs.
"The choice between VOO and SPY is not merely about expense ratios but a fundamental trade-off between long-term fee efficiency and short-term institutional liquidity."
The article frames this as a simple cost-benefit analysis, but it misses the critical distinction between 'investor' and 'trader.' While VOO is objectively superior for long-term buy-and-hold retail investors due to the 6-basis-point fee drag reduction, the article ignores why SPY remains a titan: liquidity and options market depth. SPY is the primary vehicle for institutional hedging and high-frequency trading. For an active portfolio manager or someone utilizing covered calls, the tighter bid-ask spreads and massive open interest in SPY options often outweigh the higher expense ratio. The 'cheaper' fund is only cheaper if you aren't paying a premium in execution slippage.
If you are an active trader or institutional hedger, the higher fee of SPY is essentially a 'liquidity tax' that is cheaper than the slippage costs incurred when trying to move large blocks of VOO.
"The cost advantage of VOO is real and meaningful over the long run for buy-and-hold investors, provided tracking remains tight and liquidity is sufficient."
Valuing the VOO vs SPY debate on fees misses that the delta is small in practice and could be swamped by execution costs, tax distributions, and tracking fidelity. The article highlights a 0.03% vs 0.09% fee gap, but ignores how bid-ask spreads, liquidity during stress, and potential tax consequences in taxable accounts affect real returns. Both funds track the S&P 500 with very similar risk (drawdowns ~27% over five years) and near-identical performance, so the primary differentiator for long-term holders is whether the 6 basis points a year compounds meaningfully for your cash flow. Also watch for article bias via mixed promotional content.
SPY's deeper liquidity and longer track record can reduce trading costs and taxable distributions for large, active accounts, potentially offsetting or exceeding VOO's fee advantage in practice.
"SPY's options arbitrage can tighten VOO spreads indirectly, reducing the size threshold where liquidity truly dominates fees."
Claude correctly flags the $500M rebalance threshold but overlooks that SPY's options-driven creation/redemption mechanism can still generate tighter effective spreads for VOO holders via arbitrage, even at scale. This linkage means the liquidity edge isn't purely size-dependent; it can spill over. For pensions, the real unmentioned risk is whether SPY's higher fee erodes alpha targets faster than execution savings accrue when rebalancing occurs quarterly rather than intraday.
"Tax-loss harvesting lock-in is the unmentioned moat keeping SPY competitive despite higher fees in taxable accounts."
Grok's arbitrage spillover claim needs stress-testing. VOO's creation/redemption mechanism doesn't automatically tighten SPY spreads—they're separate order books. The real risk nobody flagged: tax-loss harvesting. SPY's longer history means more investors locked into it for wash-sale purposes, creating sticky AUM that masks structural fee disadvantage. For taxable accounts, this friction could flip the VOO advantage entirely if you're rotating between them.
"SPY's UIT structure forces a cash drag from uninvested dividends that likely outweighs its liquidity advantages for most investors."
Claude, you hit on the 'sticky AUM' problem: the tax-loss harvesting hurdle is the silent killer of the VOO-switch narrative. However, the panel is ignoring the structural risk of SPY's Unit Investment Trust (UIT) structure. Unlike VOO, SPY cannot reinvest dividends into the fund, creating a cash drag that isn't captured by the expense ratio alone. This structural inefficiency is a permanent performance headwind that no amount of liquidity or options depth can fully offset for long-term holders.
"SPY's UIT cash-drag claim is overstated; liquidity and tax frictions matter more than a small internal cash drag, especially for large or taxable accounts."
Gemini, the UIT cash-drag critique misses the larger picture. SPY’s inability to reinvest dividends inside the fund is a structural trait, but it doesn’t create a durable, self-sustaining underperformance for buy-and-hold investors once you account for external dividend reinvestment options and total-return tracking. The bigger, more actionable risks are SPY’s liquidity depth during stress and tax-wash sale frictions, which can swamp a 6bp fee gap for large or taxable accounts.
The panel consensus is neutral, highlighting that the choice between VOO and SPY depends on the investor's time horizon, trading frequency, and account type. While VOO offers a lower expense ratio, SPY's superior liquidity, options market depth, and institutional support can offset the fee advantage for active traders and large institutional investors.
VOO's lower expense ratio for long-term, passive retail investors.
Tax-loss harvesting friction and SPY's Unit Investment Trust (UIT) structure creating a cash drag for long-term holders.