Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
USO vs VTI: how they differ
USO is a commodity fund and VTI an equity index fund, and over the year USO returned more, +112.2% against +17.2%.
United States Oil Fund, LP and Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund.
| USO United States Oil Fund, LP | VTI Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | United | Vanguard |
| What it is | Oil | US total market |
| Total return, 1 year | +112.2% | +17.2% |
| 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 | 0.03% |
| Holdings | not filed | 3531 |
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.
VTI in plain words
VTI is an index equity fund tracking the US total market. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 88% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 3531 positions, with the top ten at 32.1%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, USO or VTI?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, USO returned +112.2% and VTI returned +17.2%, 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 VTI, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/USO-VTI Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources