FSTA vs RSPS: Weighing Two Paths to Consumer Staples Exposure

Key Takeaways

• FSTA is a market-cap-weighted fund holding roughly 100 consumer staples names, while RSPS equally weights a much smaller set of about 37–39 S&P 500 staples constituents.
• FSTA carries a 0.08% expense ratio, dramatically lower than RSPS's 0.40%, giving the Fidelity fund a meaningful long-term cost advantage.
• FSTA concentrates heavily in mega-caps, with Walmart, Costco, and Procter & Gamble comprising more than one-third of assets, whereas RSPS caps single-stock risk at roughly 3% per holding.
• RSPS historically offers a modestly higher dividend yield, but it trades with smaller assets under management (AUM) and thinner liquidity than FSTA.
• RSPS's equal-weight design reduces concentration risk and tilts toward mid-cap staples names, while FSTA favors the sector's dominant, higher-margin leaders.
• Tickeron AI Verdict: FSTA is the preferred choice, reflecting its lower cost, broader diversification, deeper liquidity, and stronger multi-year performance profile.

Why Consumer Staples ETFs Matter Now

Consumer staples remain a cornerstone of defensive portfolio construction, offering exposure to the everyday products — food, beverages, household goods, and tobacco — that households keep buying across economic cycles. This comparison examines two distinct paths to that same sector: the Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF (FSTA) and the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS). Although both target U.S. consumer staples equities, they are not direct substitutes. One is a broad, market-cap-weighted index fund; the other applies an equal-weight methodology. Understanding that structural difference is central to evaluating their relative positioning, sector exposure, and risk profiles in the current market environment. I also checked this using Tickeron’s AI Screener to see how the two funds compare on key metrics.

Breaking Down FSTA

FSTA is a passively managed ETF that seeks to track the MSCI USA IMI Consumer Staples 25/50 Index, a broad benchmark spanning large-, mid-, and small-cap U.S. consumer staples companies. The fund holds roughly 96 to 104 stocks, providing wide coverage of the sector, and carries a net expense ratio of just 0.08%. Because the underlying index is market-cap weighted, FSTA leans heavily toward mega-cap leaders. Its largest positions include Walmart (WMT), Costco Wholesale (COST), Procter & Gamble (PG), Coca-Cola (KO), PepsiCo (PEP), and Philip Morris International (PM). The top three names alone account for more than one-third of the portfolio, giving the fund a pronounced large-cap, quality tilt. Nearly all assets sit in consumer defensive names, with only a marginal allocation to consumer cyclical stocks.

Understanding RSPS

RSPS is a passively managed ETF that tracks the S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples Index, which assigns an equal weight to every consumer staples company classified within the S&P 500 under the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS). The fund holds roughly 37 to 39 stocks, each weighted at approximately 3% of assets, and charges a 0.40% expense ratio. This equal-weight structure materially changes the exposure profile. Instead of concentrating in mega-caps, RSPS distributes weight across names such as Monster Beverage (MNST), Target (TGT), Bunge Global (BG), Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM), and Keurig Dr Pepper (KDP). By rebalancing back to equal weights periodically, the fund reduces single-stock concentration and gives smaller, mid-cap staples companies proportionally greater influence on returns.

The Current Industry Backdrop

Consumer staples are often viewed as a defensive anchor when investors grow cautious about economic growth, inflation, or equity-market volatility. In the current environment, sticky food and beverage prices, resilient grocery demand, and the shift toward value and quality names have supported the sector. At the same time, margin pressures from input costs, shifting consumer preferences toward private-label products, and the rising popularity of weight-loss medications that may alter consumption patterns present structural risks. Both ETFs are shaped by these forces, but differently. Mega-cap leaders — which dominate FSTA — have generally demonstrated stronger pricing power, global scale, and steadier cash flows. Mid-cap and equal-weighted names favored by RSPS can be more sensitive to commodity costs and discretionary-trade-down dynamics. Regulatory scrutiny on tobacco and packaged-food marketing, along with supply-chain normalization, remains a shared backdrop for both funds.

Performance and Positioning Side by Side

Over recent multi-year cycles, FSTA has delivered stronger cumulative returns than RSPS, a divergence largely attributable to the outperformance of its top mega-cap holdings and its far lower expense ratio. In broad terms, market-cap weighting has allowed FSTA to ride the earnings power and defensive characteristics of names like Costco and Walmart, while RSPS's equal-weight design has limited its capture of those leaders' gains. From a risk perspective, RSPS's equal-weight approach lowers single-stock concentration and can modestly smooth volatility, though both funds carry below-market beta, consistent with the staples sector's defensive nature. RSPS also offers a somewhat higher dividend yield, which may appeal to income-oriented investors. However, FSTA's lower cost, broader fund performance, and deeper AUM and trading liquidity strengthen its relative positioning for long-term, core portfolio use. From what I see, the cost edge here compounds meaningfully over time.

Using AI Tools in ETF Research

When evaluating sector ETFs like these, I find it helpful to cross-reference holdings, performance patterns, and volatility metrics with Tickeron’s AI Screener. This tool allows quick filtering by industry, market cap, and technical signals, making it easier to spot how equal-weight versus cap-weighted approaches behave across different market regimes without manually pulling dozens of data points.

Disclaimer

The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer.

Disclaimers and Limitations

Notable companies

Industry description

Market Cap

High and low price notable news

Volume