Thursday, October 15, 2026
Source trace. Via News points to the documents behind its reporting and shows what we drew from each — so you can check any claim. How we source
Source document· June 29, 2026

Energy ETFs VDE and EMLP Differ on Cost and Approach

View original at nasdaq.com
Energy ETFs VDE and EMLP Differ on Cost and Approach Key Points Vanguard Energy ETF offers a significantly lower expense ratio than First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund Vanguard Energy ETF has outperformed on a 1-year total return basis but has experienced a deeper historical maximum drawdown First Tru…
Opening lines of the source · short snapshot — read the full document at the original

What we drew from this source

The claims Via News extracted from this document. We point to the source; we don't replace it.

  • VDE is significantly more affordable than EMLP, with an expense ratio of 0.09% compared to 0.95% charged by First Trust

    60% confidence
  • VDE's top holdings — ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips — are vertically integrated companies involved in every aspect of energy discovery and delivery, from exploration and recovery through transportation, refining, and consumer sales

    60% confidence
  • Beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns relative to the S&P 500; VDE beta is 0.42 and EMLP beta is 0.56

    60% confidence
  • Both VDE and EMLP have substantially underperformed the S&P 500 index over the last decade; the S&P 500 generated total returns of 322% and a CAGR of 15.5%

    60% confidence
  • Motley Fool Stock Advisor's total average return is 892%, a market-crushing outperformance compared to 205% for the S&P 500

    60% confidence
  • EMLP is an actively managed fund focused on companies that generate at least half their revenue from energy infrastructure operations such as pipelines, storage tanks, and power transmission, which is why it carries higher costs

    60% confidence
  • Vanguard Energy ETF was not among the 10 best stocks identified by the Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team as of June 29, 2026

    60% confidence
  • EMLP has generated a 10-year total return of 165% with a CAGR of 10.3%

    60% confidence
  • VDE may be favored by investors seeking traditional energy sector exposure at a reasonable cost; investors willing to pay higher fees may favor EMLP for its track record of delivering higher long-term returns

    60% confidence
  • VDE has outperformed EMLP on a 1-year total return basis (30.0% vs 21.4%) but has experienced a deeper maximum 5-year drawdown (-26.6% vs -14.6%)

    60% confidence
  • VDE has generated a 10-year total return of 133%, equating to a CAGR of 8.8%

    60% confidence
  • EMLP provides heavier exposure to utilities (54%) while VDE is almost entirely concentrated in the energy sector (approximately 99%)

    60% confidence

Data points we hold from this source

S&P 500 Index Fund · cagr 10yr15.5 percent
S&P 500 Index Fund · total return 10yr322 percent
What we know · the intelligence behind this page
Live from the substrate
What we're seeing
Q4 2026 Clinical Catalyst Season: Big-Pharma Data Flow, Regulatory Milestones, and a Thin AI-Drug Fringe
October 2026 conferences (EASD, IGCS, NACFC, HFSA) are producing a dense run of late-stage readouts from Novo Nordisk, Lilly, Roche, Bayer, Vertex and Galderma. Regulatory milestones are scheduled behind them: the ivonescimab BLA PDUFA date on 2026-11-14, FDA acceptance of Roche's vamikibart BLA, and Scholar Rock's EMA resubmission. The AI-and-finance angle is peripheral. It consists of the AI-designed drug Rentosertib and QAIAx, a speculative microcap whose trial claims (the QIII pilot, anticipated 2027-01-01, and a patent update) are forecasts and filings rather than data, so they warrant skepticism.
Our read on the data ›
Signals we're tracking
EPKINLY Regulatory-Clinical Success Cascade
High probability of expanded label indications, additional combination approvals, and competitive positioning strength in follicular lymphoma market. Predicts positive commercial uptake and potential accelerated review for related indications.
Patterns we're watching ›
Where sources disagree
ING Group
Both facts record the same metric (shares_outstanding) for ING Group at the identical observation date (2025-12-31). FACT A states 2,902,437,688 shares; FACT B states 2,902 million shares (2,902,000,000). The difference is 437,688 shares (~0.015%). This is a genuine value conflict, though the discrepancy appears to result from FACT B rounding to the nearest million while FACT A provides the precise count.
We flag conflicts openly ›
Recently verified
✓ Checked against the original source
4,986
facts traced to their source — and we flag the ones that don't hold up.
101 entities tracked4,986 facts checked against source5,375 source documents archived
Query this data → isubstrate.com