AVUV vs VONV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
AVUV and VONV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. AVUV is Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF, while VONV is Vanguard Russell 1000 Value ETF. VONV has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has AVUV ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 60.
| Metric | AVUV | VONV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 798 | 875 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.27% | 1.54% |
| Average volume | 1,309,567 | 776,391 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +22.4% | +26% |
| YTD return | +17.4% | +22.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +9.2% | +11.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.2% | 11.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.5% | -7.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -28.8% | -18.9% |
| Beta | 0.71 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.21 | 1.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.02 | 2.72 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 48/100 | 65/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 78/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF vs Vanguard Russell 1000 Value ETF
AVUV leads
AVUV leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support AVUV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
Vanguard Russell 1000 Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AVUV over VONV, 62 versus 60 as of Nov 7, 2026. AVUV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while VONV holds the stronger momentum profile. AVUV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AVUV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. AVUV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF and Vanguard Russell 1000 Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
AVUV vs VONV: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | AVUV | VONV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.25% | 0.06% | VONV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 798 | 875 | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.27% | 1.54% | VONV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -28.8% | -18.9% | VONV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.2% | 11.6% | VONV |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AVUV and VONV against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value67 vs 48AVUV +19
- Momentum48 vs 65VONV +17
- Quality62 vs 59Even
- Risk Resilience77 vs 78Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor AVUV. AVUV’s edge is concentrated in value; VONV keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
AVUV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVUV and VONV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AVUV (Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
VONV (Vanguard Russell 1000 Value ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | AVUV | VONV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 798 | 875 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,309,567 | 776,391 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.2% | 11.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.5% | -7.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.21 | 1.77 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.71 | 0.68 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
AVUV vs VONV: five-year payout growth
AVUV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 18.64% a year against VONV's 4.52%. AVUV never reduced its annual distribution in the window; VONV did in 1 year.
| Dividend metric | AVUV | VONV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 18.64% | 4.52% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.686 | $1.348 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.612 | $1.682 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #29 of 138 | #102 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AVUV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 62 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | AVUV | Value 67 vs 48 |
| Technicals | VONV | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs 0.9%; vs 200-day 0.5% vs 7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 77 vs 78 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVUV and VONV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on AVUV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6AVUV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AVUV +2
- 62 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- AVUV +7
- 70 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- AVUV +1
- 64 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- AVUV +5
- 65 vs 60
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when AVUV moved ahead of VONV.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VONV
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.11%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, MACD Bearish Crossover.
AVUV leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.7%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.38%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1VONV closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVUV's edge.
- 2VONV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AVUV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
VONV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AVUV | VONV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.1% | 1.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.2% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.2% | 10% |
| Year to date | 17.4% | 22.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.4% | 26% |
Technicals
VONV has the stronger structure| Metric | AVUV | VONV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.1 | 53.6 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 23.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | 0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.5% | 7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.1% | 15% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AVUV | VONV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.21 | 1.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.02 | 2.72 |
| Max drawdown | -8.5% | -7.2% |
| Current drawdown | -7% | -3% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.2% | 11.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, AVUV or VONV?
They hold a similar number of positions: 798 for AVUV and 875 for VONV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VONV has the lower expense ratio, 0.06% a year against 0.25% for AVUV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VONV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.54% against 1.27% for AVUV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
AVUV has been more volatile over the past year, at 15.2% annualized against 11.6% for VONV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VONV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -18.9% against -28.8% for AVUV.
Compare AVUV and VONV with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.