ETF Comparison
Compare two ETF paths side by side using growth, yield, fees, and ongoing contributions.
Projection outlook
Follow how the balance builds over time as returns and new contributions compound together.
The path starts near $30,000 and ends around $431,551 by year 15.
Scenario comparison
Use the spread between scenarios to see how sensitive this outcome is to the assumptions you change first.
Conservative currently leads base by about $426,019, which shows the approximate range across the modeled cases.
What changes the result most
Base
ETF A projected lead
$2,766
Optimistic
Higher future income path
$9,004
Conservative
Lower ending value path
$428,785
Accessibility summary: ETF A projects to $431,551 versus $428,785 for ETF B, with future income estimates of $5,610 and $9,004 per year. Base: $2,766 (ETF A projected lead) | Optimistic: $9,004 (Higher future income path) | Conservative: $428,785 (Lower ending value path)
Results
ETF A leads this comparison by about $2,766 after 15 years.
ETF A projects to $431,551 versus $428,785 for ETF B, with future income estimates of $5,610 and $9,004 per year.
ETF A projected value
$431,551
ETF B projected value
$428,785
ETF A fee drag
$804
ETF B fee drag
$5,336
How to use this output
Start with the main result at the top. Then review the key numbers, look at how the chart changes over time, and compare the Base, Optimistic, and Conservative scenarios before making a decision.
Saved scenarios
Save multiple scenarios to compare optimistic, conservative, and custom planning paths later.
Newsletter
Get new financial models and planning insights
Receive retirement, tax strategy, debt payoff, and investing ideas along with new WealthyNest tools.
Model overview
Understand the model at a glance
What this model does
- Compares two ETF strategies side by side with the same starting capital and annual contributions.
- Shows projected ending value, estimated future income, and cumulative fee drag for each path.
- Helps frame tradeoffs between yield, growth potential, and expense ratio.
Key assumptions
- The model compares two ETF paths using smooth annual return, yield, and fee assumptions rather than real market volatility.
- Each ETF path receives the same initial investment and annual contribution so the comparison stays apples-to-apples.
- Expense ratios are modeled as a simple annual drag on performance rather than fund-level tax or tracking-error effects.
Example scenario
An investor comparing a broad-market ETF against a dividend-focused ETF can see how differences in yield, fee drag, and growth assumptions change the long-term outcome.
How the math works
Open to review the formulas and planning logic behind this model.
+
How the math works
Open to review the formulas and planning logic behind this model.
- Each ETF starts with the same initial investment and the same annual contribution schedule.
- The model applies annual growth plus dividend yield, then subtracts the expense ratio as a simplified drag.
- It tracks both ETF balances over time so you can compare the ending gap directly.
Next steps
Insights and recommendations
Questions
FAQ
Can I compare growth and dividend ETFs here?
Yes. The model is designed to compare different ETF profiles, including broad-market, dividend-focused, and income-oriented funds.
Why does each ETF get the same annual contribution?
It keeps the comparison fair by applying the same new capital to each path. That makes the ending difference easier to interpret.
Do the results include taxes?
No. The ETF comparison is pre-tax and focuses on value, income, and fee drag.
What does expense drag mean?
It is a simplified estimate of the value lost to annual fund fees over the modeled period.
Can I use this for mutual funds too?
Yes, if the inputs behave similarly to an ETF and you can estimate price, yield, growth, and expenses.
Should I trust the higher projected ETF automatically?
No. Use the output alongside diversification, tax, liquidity, and risk considerations.