Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11SPYM is currently the cheaper fund by one basis point, but its since-inception benchmark record is not an S&P 500-only series. State Street reports a 0.02% gross expense ratio for SPYM (product information observed October 13, 2026), while Vanguard’s June 30, 2026 fact sheet lists 0.03% for VOO. The difference is real, but it is too small to explain performance by itself.
SPYM’s present objective is to track the S&P 500. Its linked historical benchmark, however, runs through four indexes: the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Total Stock Market Index, Russell 1000 Index, SSGA Large Cap Index, and finally the S&P 500. That sequence matters whenever you read a since-inception return or compare the funds over their full records.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What the one-basis-point fee difference means
An expense ratio is the annual operating cost deducted from a fund’s assets. One basis point equals 0.01 percentage point. On the dated disclosures available here, SPYM’s stated gross expense ratio is 0.02%, compared with 0.03% for VOO.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
| Fund | Expense ratio | Document date | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPYM | 0.02% gross | State Street product information observed October 13, 2026 | SPYM is lower by 0.01 percentage point (one basis point) |
| VOO | 0.03% | Vanguard fact sheet dated June 30, 2026 |
As a simple illustration, a one-basis-point annual difference is about $1 per year on a $10,000 balance before compounding and before any change in the balance. That is arithmetic, not a forecast of either fund’s realized advantage. Actual results also reflect portfolio tracking, trading spreads, taxes, cash drag, and the price at which an investor buys or sells. The disclosures are dated, so check the latest prospectus and fact sheet before making a current decision.
#1 Best Overall
State Street describes SPYM as seeking results that, before fees and expenses, correspond generally to the total return performance of the S&P 500. The phrase “before fees and expenses” describes the objective; investors receive returns after the fund’s expenses and their own trading costs.
Why SPYM’s linked history uses four indexes
The four-index sequence is a continuity convention for the fund’s historical benchmark. It does not mean SPYM has four benchmarks simultaneously today. State Street identifies the current benchmark as the S&P 500, with earlier portions of the linked series assigned to the indexes below:
| Period in SPYM’s linked benchmark history | Index used | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|
| Fund inception through July 9, 2013 | Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Total Stock Market Index | Early performance is measured against this broad large-cap index, not the S&P 500 |
| July 9, 2013 through November 16, 2017 | Russell 1000 Index | The linked benchmark changes to Russell’s large-cap universe |
| November 16, 2017 through January 24, 2020 | SSGA Large Cap Index | The fund’s historical comparison uses State Street’s large-cap index for this interval |
| January 24, 2020 to the present | S&P 500 Index | This is the current benchmark period |
Because the benchmark changed on specific dates, a chart labeled “since inception” is a stitched series. It is useful for describing the fund’s record over time, but it cannot be read as though SPYM had tracked the S&P 500 continuously since 2005. State Street also notes that it is not possible to invest directly in an index; an index is a reference measure, while an ETF is a tradable portfolio that incurs expenses and tracking effects.
Inception dates make full-record returns different measurements
SPYM and VOO did not begin on the same date. State Street lists SPYM’s inception as November 8, 2005. Vanguard lists VOO’s inception as September 7, 2010.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
| Fund | Inception date | What a since-inception figure includes |
|---|---|---|
| SPYM | November 8, 2005 | More than five years before VOO existed, including the first three benchmark regimes and the S&P 500 period beginning January 24, 2020 |
| VOO | September 7, 2010 | A shorter period beginning in 2010 and ending on the fact sheet’s measurement date |
A since-inception annualized return therefore answers a different question for each fund. It is not a controlled comparison of identical market days, benchmark definitions, or economic conditions. SPYM’s figure includes years that VOO cannot include, while VOO’s figure starts after SPYM’s earliest operating years.
What the June 30, 2026 performance figures show
The June 2026 fact sheets present annualized NAV returns for periods longer than one year. Both issuers say distributions are reinvested. State Street says its results are net of fees and distinguishes NAV from market-value returns; Vanguard likewise distinguishes NAV and market-price returns.
| Measure (as of June 30, 2026) | SPYM | VOO | Reading the number correctly |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annualized 10-year NAV return | 15.36% | 15.47% | These are the same named period length and NAV basis; the 0.11-percentage-point difference does not identify a single cause |
| Annualized since-inception NAV return | 11.37% | 15.03% | Not a like-for-like comparison because inception dates and SPYM’s linked benchmark history differ |
The ten-year figures are the more informative pair for a first comparison because they share the June 30, 2026 endpoint and the same stated NAV convention. Even there, a small gap cannot be attributed automatically to the expense ratio. Index construction, portfolio implementation, sampling, cash management, rebalancing timing, and other tracking differences can affect the result. The since-inception figures should be treated as historical context, not evidence that one fund would have produced the same result over the other fund’s lifespan.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Both issuers warn that past performance is not a guarantee of future results. A return table records what happened through a stated date; it does not forecast the next decade.
How to make a fair SPYM–VOO comparison
- Choose one measurement window. Use the same start date and end date for both funds. If the question is current large-cap performance, a common ten-year window ending on the same day is more meaningful than comparing each fund’s full history.
- Match the return basis. Compare NAV with NAV or market price with market price. Do not place one fund’s NAV return beside the other fund’s market-price return.
- Use the same distribution assumption. Confirm that dividends and capital-gains distributions are reinvested in both series. A cash-distribution series will not match a reinvested series.
- Record the fee dates. SPYM’s 0.02% and VOO’s 0.03% come from documents dated at different times. Fees can change, so preserve the document date beside every quoted figure.
- Read the benchmark footnote. For SPYM, identify whether the period crosses one or more of the four benchmark regimes. A long period that begins before January 24, 2020 is not an S&P 500-only comparison.
- Separate fund returns from trading results. Your result depends on the execution price, bid-ask spread, brokerage charges if any, taxes, and holding period. Current spread and trading-cost data were not established in the cited materials, so verify them separately for the account and exchange conditions you will use.
When the lower fee matters—and when it may not
Fees compound because they are deducted from assets every year. All else equal, a lower expense ratio leaves slightly more of the portfolio invested. The difference between 0.02% and 0.03%, however, is only one basis point, so it should be considered alongside the fund’s actual tracking difference and the costs of trading.
- For a long holding period: the fee gap is persistent, so it is reasonable to include it in a cost comparison. It still does not establish which fund will deliver the higher realized return.
- For a small or infrequent purchase: a wider bid-ask spread or an unfavorable execution price could outweigh several years of one-basis-point fee savings. Check live market conditions when placing an order.
- For a performance review: use net, total-return figures on a common basis. A fund can have a lower stated fee and still trail over a selected period because implementation and market effects differ.
- For a benchmark question: distinguish today’s investment objective from the historical series used in a fact sheet. SPYM’s current S&P 500 objective does not rewrite its pre-2020 benchmark record.
Common mistakes and the fix for each
Calling SPYM’s whole record “S&P 500 performance”
Why it fails: the linked benchmark uses three other indexes before January 24, 2020.
Fix: describe the record as a four-index linked history and identify the S&P 500-only period separately.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsComparing since-inception returns as if the funds launched together
Why it fails: SPYM began on November 8, 2005, while VOO began on September 7, 2010. The measured market regimes are different.
Rank #4
Fix: align start and end dates, then label the result as NAV or market price.
Assuming the one-basis-point fee explains every return difference
Why it fails: fees are only one component of tracking outcomes. Portfolio operations, index methodology, cash, rebalancing, and trading effects also matter.
Fix: compare the funds’ net total returns over the same dates and investigate the tracking difference rather than inferring causation from the expense ratio alone.
Mixing NAV and market-price performance
Why it fails: NAV reflects the value of the underlying holdings, while market-price returns include the price at which ETF shares traded.
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Fix: keep the return convention identical on both sides of the comparison.
Quoting a fee without its date or definition
Why it fails: disclosures can change, and “gross” expense ratio language is not interchangeable with every other cost measure.
Fix: state the issuer, document date, and whether the figure is gross whenever you cite it.
Recommended Free Tools
What each fund’s published record can legitimately tell you
SPYM’s materials support three separate statements: its current benchmark is the S&P 500; its linked benchmark history contains four indexes; and its published June 30, 2026 annualized NAV returns were 15.36% for ten years and 11.37% since inception, with reinvested distributions and fees reflected in the performance results.
VOO’s June 30, 2026 fact sheet supports its 0.03% expense ratio, a 15.47% annualized ten-year NAV return, and a 15.03% annualized since-inception NAV return, also with reinvested distributions. Those figures are historical and tied to VOO’s own inception date and reporting conventions.
The practical conclusion is narrow but useful: SPYM’s stated fee is lower, yet the fee difference is not a complete decision rule. If you are comparing the funds, use a matched period, matched return basis, and the same distribution assumption. Treat SPYM’s pre-2020 linked benchmarks as part of the explanation for its history, not as evidence that the fund failed to track its current S&P 500 objective.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
