Just did a quick comparison of FSTA and RSPS since both track the consumer staples sector but in pretty different ways. Interesting findings if you're looking at defensive plays right now.

FSTA's got a massive fee advantage - 0.08% expense ratio versus RSPS at 0.40%. That's $32 less per year on a $10k investment, which adds up over time. Performance-wise, FSTA has been ahead over the past year and five years, though both are relatively stable given the consumer staples sector focus. RSPS does pay slightly higher dividends at 2.82% versus 2.34%, so there's a trade-off.

The real difference is how they structure holdings. FSTA concentrates heavy in mega-caps - Costco, Walmart, P&G make up nearly 37% of the fund with 96 total stocks. RSPS takes an equal-weight approach with only 36 stocks, so each position is roughly 3% of the portfolio. This means FSTA could swing harder if those big names do well, but you also get more concentrated risk.

RSPS's equal-weight method spreads risk more evenly across the consumer staples sector, which could mean lower volatility but potentially less upside if the mega-cap names outperform. The smaller stock count also means less diversification overall. Neither is clearly better - depends if you want mega-cap exposure or more balanced positioning in defensive stocks. Worth thinking about your risk tolerance before choosing.