ETF Comparison Calculator

Free ETF comparison calculator — compare up to 3 ETFs on expense ratio, tracking error, and total return net of fees over your investment horizon.

$
years
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

Projected Results (25 years)

ETFERNet ReturnFinal ValueFee Cost
ETF A 0.03%9.97%$538,053.71$3,681.59
ETF B 0.20%9.75%$511,779.90$29,955.39
ETF C 0.75%9.15%$446,234.87$95,500.43
ETF A
$538,053.71
Net 9.97% / Fee drag $3,681.59
ETF B
$511,779.90
Net 9.75% / Fee drag $29,955.39
ETF C
$446,234.87
Net 9.15% / Fee drag $95,500.43
Planning notes, formulas, and examples

About the ETF Comparison Calculator

Choosing between similar ETFs often comes down to cost. Two S&P 500 ETFs may track the same index but differ in expense ratio, tracking error, and tax efficiency. Over decades, these small differences compound into meaningful dollar amounts that affect retirement readiness.

Our ETF Comparison Calculator lets you enter up to three ETF profiles — each with its own expense ratio, expected gross return, and optional tracking error — then projects their net-of-fee growth side by side over your chosen time horizon. See which ETF delivers the most wealth at the end and how much you save by choosing the cheapest option. Exchange-traded funds can look nearly identical on the surface, with similar holdings, sector exposure, and tracking indexes, yet differ significantly in expense ratios, tracking error, tax efficiency, and liquidity. Over a 20-year holding period, even a 0.10% difference in fees can compound into thousands of dollars of lost returns.

When This Page Helps

Investors often hold overlapping ETFs without realizing the cost difference. This calculator makes the comparison concrete. Whether you are deciding between a Vanguard, Schwab, or iShares S&P 500 ETF, or comparing a growth ETF against a value ETF, the side-by-side projection shows exactly how fees and return differences translate into final portfolio value.

How to Use the Inputs

  1. Enter your initial investment amount and time horizon.
  2. Fill in the name, expense ratio, and expected gross return for ETF 1.
  3. Optionally fill in ETF 2 and ETF 3 for side-by-side comparison.
  4. Optionally enter an annual tracking error for each ETF (reduces effective return).
  5. Review the projected final values and cumulative fee costs for each ETF.
  6. Identify the winner and see the dollar advantage over the alternatives.
Formula used
Net Return = Gross Return - Expense Ratio - Tracking Error. FV = Investment × (1 + Net Return)^Years. Fee Cost = FV at Gross Return - FV at Net Return.

Example Calculation

Result: ETF 1: $534,618 / ETF 2: $507,570 / ETF 3: $440,235

Starting with $50,000 over 25 years at 10% gross return, the cheapest ETF (0.03%) reaches $534,618 while the most expensive (0.75%) reaches only $440,235 — a $94,383 gap driven purely by fees. The mid-range ETF (0.20%) lands at $507,570.

Tips & Best Practices

  • For core index holdings, expense ratios below 0.10% are widely available from major providers.
  • Tracking error matters for index ETFs — a fund with a higher ER but lower tracking error may deliver nearly the same net return.
  • Consider tax efficiency: ETFs with in-kind creation/redemption generally distribute fewer capital gains.
  • Bid-ask spreads are an additional hidden cost for less liquid ETFs — check average daily volume.
  • Compare dividend yields and distribution frequencies if income is a priority.
  • Rebalancing costs may differ: an ETF you rarely trade costs less in commissions than one you actively manage.

Why ETF Selection Matters

The ETF revolution democratized low-cost investing, but not all ETFs are created equal. Even within the same asset class, expense ratios range from 0.03% to over 1.00%. Over a 30-year accumulation phase, that spread can mean the difference between retiring at 60 versus 63. Smart ETF selection is one of the few free lunches in investing.

Beyond Expense Ratios

While cost is king, investors should also examine tracking difference (actual return minus index return), tax efficiency, and liquidity. An ETF with a 0.10% expense ratio that consistently outperforms its benchmark by 0.05% through securities lending income may deliver a lower all-in cost than a 0.03% fund with poor tracking. Use this calculator alongside fund fact sheets for the most complete picture.

Building a Low-Cost Portfolio

A common approach is the three-fund portfolio: a US total market ETF, an international ETF, and a bond ETF. By selecting the lowest-cost option in each category and rebalancing annually, investors capture broad market returns while minimizing drag. This calculator helps you choose the best candidate in each slot and quantify the lifetime savings.

Sources & Methodology

Last updated:

Methodology

This page compares up to three ETF scenarios by subtracting each fund’s expense ratio and user-entered tracking-error allowance from the user’s gross return assumption, then compounding that net return over the chosen horizon. It also compares each scenario against a gross-return baseline so the long-run fee drag is visible in dollars.

The result is a simplified side-by-side worksheet, not a forecast of actual ETF performance. It does not model taxes, bid-ask spreads, securities-lending offsets, changing distributions, or changing market returns, so it is best used to compare structural cost differences rather than to predict a precise future account value.

Sources

Frequently Asked Questions

  • Tracking error measures how much an ETF deviates from its benchmark index. It can result from sampling techniques, cash drag, securities lending income, or timing of dividend reinvestment. A tracking error of 0.05% means the fund underperformed or outperformed the index by that amount on average.