GGUS vs. VONG: Why Investors Don't Need to Switch ETFs for Large Cap Growth Exposure

In the crowded world of large-cap growth ETFs, the choice between GGUS (Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Russell 1000 Growth Equity ETF) and VONG (Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth ETF) often hinges on a few key metrics: expense ratios, historical performance, and investor behavior. For investors already holding either fund, the question arises: Is switching worth the effort? After a deep dive into cost efficiency, performance parity, and the behavioral economics of low-cost ETF markets, the answer leans decisively toward “no.” Here's why.

Cost Efficiency: The 0.05% Divide

The most glaring difference between GGUS and VONG is their expense ratios. VONG charges 0.07%, while GGUS comes in at 0.12%—a 5-basis-point premium. Over time, this small difference compounds significantly. For example, a $100,000 investment in VONG would save $1,250 in fees over 10 years compared to GGUS, assuming identical returns.

While GGUS's higher expense ratio might seem trivial, it underscores a broader trend in the ETF industry: cost matters. Vanguard's ability to offer a rock-bottom expense ratio reflects its scale and operational efficiency, whereas Goldman Sachs's platform, while reputable, lacks the same cost advantages. For long-term investors, this 0.05% gap is a drag on returns that's hard to ignore.

Performance Parity: Slight Edges, No Clear Winner

Historically, the performance gap between the two ETFs has been negligible. Over the past five years, VONG has delivered 16.88% annualized returns, while GGUS clocked in at 16.91%. In specific years, GGUS outperformed in 2023 and 2020, while VONG edged ahead in 2024 and 2025 (YTD).

The overlap in holdings (83.5%) explains this parity. Both funds track the Russell 1000 Growth Index, which is heavily weighted toward tech and consumer discretionary stocks. For instance, VONG's top holdings like Microsoft (MSFT) and Meta (META) are mirrored in GGUS's portfolio, albeit with minor weighting differences.

The key takeaway? Performance is so closely aligned that the 0.05% expense differential is the dominant factor. Even if GGUS occasionally outperforms, the margin is rarely large enough to justify the costs of switching.

Investor Inertia: The Hidden Cost of Overthinking

In low-cost ETF markets, behavioral inertia often works in investors' favor. Switching ETFs involves transaction fees, time, and the psychological burden of decision-making. For most retail investors, the effort required to switch from GGUS to VONG (or vice versa) outweighs the marginal benefits.

Consider the math: If an investor spends $50 on transaction fees to switch $100,000 in assets, that's a 0.05% cost—matching the expense ratio gap. Over time, this one-time cost compounds with the ongoing expense ratio difference, eroding any potential gains.

Moreover, both ETFs are liquid and well-diversified, reducing the need for frequent rebalancing or tactical adjustments. VONG's $37.69 billion in assets under management (AUM) and GGUS's $501.71 million mean that either fund can handle large trades without slippage. For most investors, this liquidity ensures that staying put is not a risk.

The Case for Staying the Course

For investors already holding either GGUS or VONG, the data suggests no urgent need to switch. The performance parity between the two ETFs is robust, and the cost differential, while real, is best managed through long-term compounding rather than short-term tinkering.

If anything, VONG's lower expense ratio and larger AUM make it the slightly more compelling option for new allocations. But for existing holders of GGUS, the 0.05% gap is not a crisis—it's a rounding error in the context of long-term investing.

Final Thoughts

The low-cost ETF market has democratized access to large-cap growth exposure, but it's also created a paradox: too many choices for too little difference. In the case of GGUS and VONG, the decision to switch is rarely worth the effort. Investors are better served focusing on broader portfolio diversification, tax efficiency, and long-term goals—leaving the minutiae of ETF selection to the professionals.

After all, in investing, inaction is often the most powerful strategy.