CALF vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CALF and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CALF is Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows ETF, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. VOO is broader by holdings count, with 508 positions versus 200 for CALF. VOO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CALF ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 54.
What is the main difference between CALF and VOO?
CALF and VOO have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | CALF | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.59% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 200 | 508 |
| Top-10 concentration | 20.8% | 37.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.13% | 1.1% |
| Average volume | 552,938 | 6,909,667 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +31.6% | +8.5% |
| YTD return | +27.9% | +7.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.5% | +11% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 16.3% | 13.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -34.2% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 0.58 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.57 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.89 | 0.63 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 64/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 74/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
CALF leads
CALF leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support CALF, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows ETF
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CALF over VOO, 63 versus 54 as of Nov 7, 2026. CALF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while VOO holds the stronger quality profile. CALF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CALF today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CALF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CALF vs VOO: 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 | CALF | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.59% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 200 | 508 | VOO |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 20.8% | 37.6% | CALF |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.13% | 1.1% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -34.2% | -24.5% | VOO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 16.3% | 13.6% | VOO |
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 CALF and VOO 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.
- Momentum64 vs 25CALF +39
- Quality53 vs 77VOO +24
- Value67 vs 43CALF +24
- Risk Resilience74 vs 77Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor CALF. CALF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; VOO keeps a meaningful quality 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 -5
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
CALF's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CALF and VOO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CALF (Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
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 | CALF | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.59% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 200 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 552,938 | 6,909,667 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 16.3% | 13.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.57 | 0.46 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.58 | 1.00 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
CALF and VOO share 0.42% of their weighted exposure across 15 common holdings.
183 holdings are unique to CALF, and 490 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VOO is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 37.65% of the fund, against 20.83% for CALF (508 holdings vs 200). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | CALF | VOO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXPEExpedia Group Inc | 2.25% | 0.05% | 0.05% |
| BIIBBiogen Inc | 1.97% | 0.05% | 0.05% |
| EQTEQT Corp | 1.94% | 0.05% | 0.05% |
| EXEExpand Energy Corp | 2% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| OMCOmnicom Group Inc | 1.9% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| BBYBest Buy Co Inc | 1.69% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| INCYIncyte Corp | 1.52% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| CFCF Industries Holdings Inc | 1.88% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What CALF adds that VOO doesn’t
| Holding | CALF | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| THCTenet Healthcare Corp | 2.76% | Not held |
| EXPEExpedia Group Inc | 2.25% | 0.05% |
| AUAnglogold Ashanti Plc | 2.2% | Not held |
| EXEExpand Energy Corp | 2% | 0.04% |
| DINOHF Sinclair Corp | 1.98% | Not held |
| BIIBBiogen Inc | 1.97% | 0.05% |
What VOO adds that CALF doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | CALF |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 7.55% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.05% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.36% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.13% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.24% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.86% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
CALF vs VOO: five-year payout growth
CALF grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 19.86% a year against VOO's 5.91%. VOO never reduced its annual distribution in the window; CALF did in 2 years. CALF: The payout jumped 337.3% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. CALF: A single payment in an endpoint year was 3.6x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | CALF | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 19.86% | 5.91% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.257 | $5.303 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.636 | $7.068 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #26 of 138 | #88 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CALF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CALF | 63 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | CALF | Value 67 vs 43 |
| Technicals | CALF | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs -4%; vs 200-day 11.6% vs 0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 74 vs 77 |
| 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 CALF and VOO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CALF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6CALF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CALF +9
- 63 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- CALF +11
- 67 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- CALF +4
- 67 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- CALF +2
- 64 vs 62
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when CALF moved ahead of VOO.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CALF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.37%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
CALF 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 -1.41%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.3%, 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.
- 1VOO closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to CALF's edge.
- 2VOO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CALF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
CALF leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CALF | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.8% | -5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.3% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.2% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | 27.9% | 7.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 31.6% | 8.5% |
Technicals
CALF has the stronger structure| Metric | CALF | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.8 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 33 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.6% | 0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.7% | 19.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CALF | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.57 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.89 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -8% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -5.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.3% | 13.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between CALF and VOO?
CALF and VOO have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do CALF and VOO overlap?
CALF and VOO share 0.42% of their weighted exposure across 15 common holdings. 183 holdings are unique to CALF, and 490 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, CALF or VOO?
VOO holds more positions: 508 versus 200 for CALF.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.59% for CALF.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.13% for CALF and 1.1% for VOO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
CALF has been more volatile over the past year, at 16.3% annualized against 13.6% for VOO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VOO fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.5% against -34.2% for CALF.
Compare CALF and VOO 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.