Someone Switched From VOO to RSP at the Start of the Year. Here Is What Happened.

There’s an old saying in investing that your portfolio is like a bar of soap. The more you handle it, the smaller it gets. Between bid-ask spreads, commissions, and taxes on realized capital gains, constantly tinkering with your holdings can quietly eat away at returns. Most of the time, staying put is the better move.

Still, there are moments when a switch can pay off. So far in 2026, one of those moves has been swapping a traditional market cap-weighted ETF like the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: VOO) for an equal-weight alternative like the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (NYSEMKT: RSP).

According to data from testfolio.io as of March 23, RSP is up 0.49% on a total return basis year to date, while VOO is down 3.62%. But before you rush to chase that outperformance, it’s worth taking a step back. Short-term results can be misleading, especially when market leadership is shifting.

In this article, we’ll look beyond the headline performance and break down what actually changes when you move from VOO to RSP. We’ll also look at the longer-term track record to see which approach has historically come out ahead. The answer isn’t as obvious as you might think.

Switching From VOO to RSP: What Changes in Your Portfolio?

I pulled up a comparison of RSP versus VOO using ETF Central’s tools, and the first thing that stands out is how much your exposure shifts.

The biggest change is sector composition. Moving from VOO to RSP cuts your technology exposure from roughly 33% down to about 14%. At the same time, sectors like industrials see a meaningful boost, rising from around 8.5% to roughly 15.5%. That shift reflects how each ETF is constructed.

VOO follows a market cap-weighted index, which means companies that perform well grow into larger positions over time. Over the past decade, that has heavily favored mega-cap tech, making it the dominant driver of returns and risk in the S&P 500.

RSP takes the opposite approach. It resets every holding to equal weight each quarter, so no company gets preferential treatment. The result is a more balanced portfolio across sectors, with less reliance on any single group of stocks and more emphasis towards mid-caps.

The second major difference is concentration. According to ETF Central, the top 15 holdings in VOO make up about 42.1% of the fund. In RSP, those same top positions account for just 4.5%. That’s a massive difference in how your capital is distributed.

So the question becomes a matter of preference. Are you comfortable having nearly half your portfolio driven by a small group of companies, or would you rather spread that risk more evenly. There’s no right or wrong answer.

But the key takeaway is this. Don’t make the switch based purely on short-term performance. Understand what you’re actually buying under the hood, with numbers to back it up.

RSP vs. VOO Over the Long Term

Year-to-date performance can be misleading. A longer time frame tells a much clearer story. Looking at a 15.5-year period from September 2010 to March 2026, the results favor VOO.

Before taxes and with dividends reinvested, VOO delivered a 14.24% annualized return. RSP lagged at 12.33%. A $10,000 investment in VOO would have ended up at $79,096 versus $60,892 for RSP. On a risk-adjusted basis, the difference is also clear. VOO posted a Sharpe ratio of 0.78 compared to 0.66 for RSP.

Part of this comes down to structure. Equal-weight strategies like RSP systematically trim winners and add to laggards during each rebalance. That can help in certain market environments, but over long periods, it can also limit upside by cutting back on the strongest performers that end up driving a significant portion of market returns.

It ties into Peter Lynch’s famous line about “watering the weeds and cutting the flowers,” which is exactly what an equal-weight approach risks doing over time.

Finally, higher costs also play a role. RSP charges a 0.20% expense ratio, while VOO comes in at just 0.03%. Over long holding periods, that difference in fees compounds negatively and creates an additional drag on returns.