Vanguard Consumer Staples ETF (VDC 1.25%) and Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF (FSTA 0.77%) both offer broad, low-cost exposure to U.S. consumer staples stocks, making them attractive choices for investors seeking stability and defensive characteristics for their portfolios. This comparison explores how the two stack up on cost, performance, risk, and underlying holdings to help investors decide which may better fit their goals.
Snapshot (cost & size)
| Metric | VDC | FSTA |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Vanguard | Fidelity |
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 0.08% |
| 1-yr return (as of 4/2/26) | 4.15% | 3.95% |
| Dividend yield | 1.95% | 2.02% |
| Beta | 0.63 | 0.63 |
| AUM | $9.9 billion | $1.5 billion |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from daily returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months.
FSTA comes in slightly cheaper on fees, with an expense ratio one basis point lower than VDC. FSTA also offers a slightly higher dividend yield. VDC's much larger assets under management (AUM) reflects its longer history and broader investor base, though for most retail investors, the size difference has little practical impact.
Performance & risk comparison
| Metric | VDC | FSTA |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (5 y) | -16.56% | -16.57% |
| Growth of $1,000 over 5 years | $1,423 | $1,416 |
Both VDC and FSTA show nearly identical risk profiles and long-term returns, with minimal differences in drawdown -- the peak-to-trough decline in value during a given period -- and five-year growth. For most investors, the performance gap between these two funds is unlikely to be a deciding factor.
What's inside
FSTA tracks a nearly identical slice of the U.S. consumer staples market as VDC does, with nearly 100 holdings dominated by large, established brands. Its biggest positions are Walmart Inc (WMT 0.93%), Costco Wholesale (COST 0.40%), and Procter + Gamble (PG 2.58%)-- which together make up roughly 37% of the portfolio.
VDC has 104 total holdings, but is similarly concentrated. The same three stocks above make up its largest positions, reinforcing the funds’ substantial overlap. Neither fund introduces notable quirks or alternative strategies, so the main differences here come down to scale, plus the previously mentioned minor fee and dividend variations.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
What this means for investors
For most retail investors, the distinctions between these two funds don’t make much difference.
Consumer staples have quietly held their own in a market environment that has rewarded growth and risk-taking. For investors who want a defensive anchor in their portfolio -- something to cushion the blow when tech stocks slide or recession fears creep in -- both VDC and FSTA fit the bill. The sector has historically held up better than the broader market during downturns, and with economic uncertainty still lingering in 2026, the appeal of everyday-necessity businesses like Walmart, Costco, and Procter & Gamble remains clear.
So why choose one over the other? FSTA's slightly lower expense ratio and slightly higher dividend are two real, if modest, edges over time -- every penny saved (or earned) compounds in the investor's favor. Both funds hold essentially the same stocks in similar proportions, and carry nearly identical risk profiles. VDC's larger size doesn’t really provide a meaningful advantage for retail investors either -- both funds hold the same highly liquid large-cap stocks, so bid-ask spreads should be a non-issue for either ETF.
If you already have a Fidelity brokerage account, FSTA may be the more convenient choice. Vanguard investors may prefer VDC for the same reason. Beyond that, I’d probably lean towards Fidelity’s modestly lower fees and slightly higher dividend. Either way, you're getting solid, low-cost exposure to one of the market's most dependable sectors.
