CANE vs VXUS: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
CANE and VXUS are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. CANE is Teucrium Sugar Fund, while VXUS is Vanguard Total International Stock ETF. VXUS is broader by holdings count, with 8,821 positions versus 15 for CANE. VXUS has the lower expense ratio.
What is the main difference between CANE and VXUS?
VXUS holds 8,821 positions to CANE's 15.
| Metric | CANE | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.54% | 0.05% |
| Holdings | 15 | 8,821 |
| Average volume | 335,108 | 5,459,776 |
| Performance | ||
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.6% | +8.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 17.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.9% | -11.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -41.7% | -28.9% |
| Beta | -0.08 | 1.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.54 | 0.83 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CANE vs VXUS
CANE and VXUS are effectively level
CANE and VXUS are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate CANE and VXUS as of the latest close. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare CANE and VXUS across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
CANE vs VXUS: 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 | CANE | VXUS | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.54% | 0.05% | VXUS |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 15 | 8,821 | VXUS |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -41.7% | -28.9% | VXUS |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 21.9% | 17.2% | VXUS |
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 CANE and VXUS against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
VXUS's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CANE and VXUS both carry a full feed there.
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 | CANE | VXUS | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.54% | 0.05% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 15 | 8,821 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 335,108 | 5,459,776 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 17.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.9% | -11.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 0.56 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.08 | 1.11 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Not covered | Not covered |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | Not covered | Not covered |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VXUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VXUS +1
- 62 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- CANE +2
- 63 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- VXUS +6
- 56 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- VXUS +9
- 62 vs 71
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 9 when VXUS moved ahead of CANE.
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CANE
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VXUS
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.08%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active.
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.
Risk
Split| Metric | CANE | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.08 | 1.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.54 | 0.83 |
| Max drawdown | -14.9% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -1.7% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 17.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between CANE and VXUS?
VXUS holds 8,821 positions to CANE's 15.
Which ETF is more diversified, CANE or VXUS?
VXUS holds more positions: 8,821 versus 15 for CANE.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VXUS has the lower expense ratio, 0.05% a year against 0.54% for CANE.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
CANE has been more volatile over the past year, at 21.9% annualized against 17.2% for VXUS.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VXUS fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -28.9% against -41.7% for CANE.
Compare CANE and VXUS 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.