DFAC vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DFAC and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DFAC is Dimensional - US Core Equity 2 ETF, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. DFAC is broader by holdings count, with 2,544 positions versus 508 for VOO. VOO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DFAC ahead on AIQ Score, 55 versus 54.
What is the main difference between DFAC and VOO?
DFAC holds 2,544 positions to VOO's 508, and 68% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | DFAC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.21% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 2,544 | 508 |
| Top-10 concentration | 26.8% | 37.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.9% | 1.1% |
| Average volume | 1,994,858 | 6,909,667 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +13% | +8.5% |
| YTD return | +10.6% | +7.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +9.9% | +11% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.9% | 13.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -23.1% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 0.92 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.06 | 0.63 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 55/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 39/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Dimensional - US Core Equity 2 ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
DFAC leads
DFAC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from VOO.
Fragile: 0 of 4 evidence groups support DFAC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Dimensional - US Core Equity 2 ETF
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DFAC over VOO, 55 versus 54 as of Nov 7, 2026. DFAC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while VOO holds the stronger quality profile. DFAC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DFAC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. DFAC lead: Reversed — VOO led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DFAC now leads by 1.
Compare Dimensional - US Core Equity 2 ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DFAC 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 | DFAC | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.21% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 2,544 | 508 | DFAC |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 26.8% | 37.6% | DFAC |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.9% | 1.1% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -23.1% | -24.5% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.9% | 13.6% | Similar |
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 DFAC 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.
- Momentum39 vs 25DFAC +14
- Quality65 vs 77VOO +12
- Value46 vs 43Even
- Risk Resilience80 vs 77Even
0 of 4 evidence groups favor DFAC. DFAC’s edge is concentrated in momentum; 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: Value +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
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.
DFAC's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DFAC and VOO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DFAC (Dimensional - US Core Equity 2 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
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 | DFAC | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.21% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2,544 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,994,858 | 6,909,667 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.9% | 13.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.46 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.92 | 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
DFAC and VOO share 67.57% of their weighted exposure across 472 common holdings.
2,067 holdings are unique to DFAC, and 33 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
VOO is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 37.65% of the fund, against 26.77% for DFAC (508 holdings vs 2,544). 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 | DFAC | VOO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 7.55% | 5.66% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 5.35% | 7.05% | 5.35% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.62% | 5.36% | 4.62% |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 2.9% | 4.13% | 2.9% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC | 1.98% | 1.9% | 1.9% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 1.55% | 3.24% | 1.55% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.32% | 2.86% | 1.32% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 1.28% | 1.44% | 1.28% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What DFAC adds that VOO doesn’t
| Holding | DFAC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| HPEHEWLETT-PACKARD ENTERPRIS | 0.21% | 0.1% |
| DVNDEVON ENERGY CORP. | 0.2% | 0.08% |
| LNGCHENIERE ENERGY INC | 0.17% | Not held |
| OXYOCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP | 0.15% | 0.06% |
| MRNAMODERNA INC | 0.14% | 0.03% |
| FERGFERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC | 0.12% | Not held |
What VOO adds that DFAC doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | DFAC |
|---|---|---|
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.24% | 1.55% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.86% | 1.32% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.62% | 0.99% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.36% | 0.24% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.21% | 0.2% |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 0.76% | 0.28% |
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.
DFAC vs VOO: five-year payout growth
VOO grew its split-adjusted payout at 5.91% a year over 2020-2025. DFAC began paying distributions in 2021, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | DFAC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $0.386 | $7.068 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #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
0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DFAC. 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 | 55 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 46 vs 43 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs -4%; vs 200-day 1.7% vs 0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 80 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 DFAC and VOO 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 DFAC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6DFAC lead: Reversed — VOO led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DFAC now leads by 1.
- Today
- DFAC +1
- 55 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- DFAC +1
- 57 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +4
- 59 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- VOO +2
- 60 vs 62
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 30 when DFAC 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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only DFAC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, BB Lower Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
DFAC 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 up over the latest session (price +0.18%, 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 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to DFAC's edge.
- 2VOO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3DFAC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
DFAC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DFAC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.5% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.4% | -5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.6% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.5% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | 10.6% | 7.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13% | 8.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | DFAC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.5 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 14.4 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.7% | 0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.7% | 19.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | DFAC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.92 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.06 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -8.7% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -5.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.9% | 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 DFAC and VOO?
DFAC holds 2,544 positions to VOO's 508, and 68% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do DFAC and VOO overlap?
DFAC and VOO share 67.57% of their weighted exposure across 472 common holdings. 2,067 holdings are unique to DFAC, and 33 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, DFAC or VOO?
DFAC holds more positions: 2,544 versus 508 for VOO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.21% for DFAC.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.9% for DFAC and 1.1% for VOO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 12.9% annualized for DFAC and 13.6% for VOO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -23.1% for DFAC and -24.5% for VOO.
Compare DFAC 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.