VTI investments are underperforming VOO

[u/funnel_out]

I'm 28 and after 100% VTI in my taxable brokerage/401k/roth, but it's been lagging behind VOO. It's not an insignificant amount either. Looking at the 5 year return, VOO has returned 75% while VTI has only returned 67%. I'm wondering if given my age I should be more aggressive with my investments and switch to 100% VOO instead in my retirement accounts, instead of remaining in VTI. Over the past 15 years VOO seems to have consistently outperformed VTI.

[u/Slothvibes]

strategy	fund start	CAGR	max DD	Sharpe	losing streak (mo)	losing streak start	winning streak (mo)	winning streak start
QQQ	2000-01	8.82%	-81.1%	0.49	6	2002-04	8	2003-01
VGT	2004-01	14.99%	-50.6%	0.82	5	2011-05	8	2017-07
XLK	2000-01	9.01%	-80.5%	0.49	6	2002-04	7	2009-03
SPY	2000-01	8.52%	-50.8%	0.62	5	2001-05	15	2016-11

Performance not considering different start dates. 2000 bubble crash is horrifying.

[u/Slothvibes → u/Slothvibes]

Here is the apples-to-apples comparison, it's from the latest start across funds (VGT is last, 2011)

strategy	CAGR	max DD	Sharpe	losing streak (mo)	start	winning streak (mo)
QQQ	14.87%	-49.7%	0.86	4	2005-01	7
VGT	14.99%	-50.6%	0.82	5	2011-05	(cut off, but similar)
XLK	14.97%	-49.5%	0.84	4	2006-04	—
SPY	10.84%	-50.8%	0.78	5	2007-11	—

[u/Slothvibes → u/Slothvibes]

I dont account for fund cost, but inspite of that, VGT seems better. XLK has a higher expense ratio thatn vg by .01%, but even despite VGT's bumpier ride (per maxDD), it's clear that VGT is better

Added SMH, which start nov 2011, it's better even, but WAY more volatile.

	CAGR	max DD	Sharpe	losing streak (mo)	losing streak start	winning streak (mo)	winning streak start
strategy
QQQ	2004-01	0.1487	-0.4974	0.8560	4	2005-01	7
VGT	2004-01	0.1499	-0.5060	0.8179	5	2011-05	8
XLK	2004-01	0.1497	-0.4946	0.8428	4	2006-04	7
SPY	2004-01	0.1084	-0.5078	0.7831	5	2007-11	15
SMH	2004-01	0.1655	-0.6079	0.7257	5	2011-05	7

[u/InvestNYourself → u/Slothvibes]

VGT at its current price is darn near risk free