Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
USO vs VOOG: how they differ
USO is a commodity fund and VOOG an equity index fund, and over the year USO returned more, +112.2% against +17.8%.
United States Oil Fund, LP and Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund.
| USO United States Oil Fund, LP | VOOG Vanguard S&P 500 Growth Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | United | Vanguard |
| What it is | Oil | S&P 500 Growth |
| Total return, 1 year | +112.2% | +17.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +94.7 pts | +0.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | not published | 0.05% |
| Holdings | not filed | 146 |
USO in plain words
USO is a commodity fund tracking the Oil. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +112.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. It sat 57.1% below its high of Apr 8, 2011 on Sep 11, 2026.
VOOG in plain words
VOOG is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.05% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 146 positions, with the top ten at 60.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, USO or VOOG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, USO returned +112.2% and VOOG returned +17.8%, so USO returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, USO against VOOG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/USO-VOOG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources