DFAC vs VTI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DFAC and VTI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DFAC is Dimensional - US Core Equity 2 ETF, while VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 2,544 for DFAC. VTI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | DFAC | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.21% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 2,544 | 3,524 |
| Top-10 concentration | 26.8% | 33.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.9% | 1.09% |
| Average volume | 1,994,858 | 3,162,812 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +13% | +8.7% |
| YTD return | +10.6% | +8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +9.9% | +9.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.9% | 13.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.7% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -23.1% | -25.4% |
| Beta | 0.92 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.06 | 0.64 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 55/100 | 55/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 39/100 | 32/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Dimensional - US Core Equity 2 ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
DFAC and VTI are effectively level
DFAC and VTI are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Dimensional - US Core Equity 2 ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate DFAC and VTI as of Nov 7, 2026. 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 Dimensional - US Core Equity 2 ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DFAC vs VTI: 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 | VTI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.21% | 0.03% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 2,544 | 3,524 | VTI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 26.8% | 33.2% | DFAC |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.9% | 1.09% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -23.1% | -25.4% | DFAC |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.9% | 13.8% | 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 VTI 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.
- Quality65 vs 74VTI +9
- Momentum39 vs 32DFAC +7
- Risk Resilience80 vs 77Even
- Value46 vs 44Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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: Value +2, 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.
VTI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DFAC and VTI 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 | DFAC | VTI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.21% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 2,544 | 3,524 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,994,858 | 3,162,812 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.9% | 13.8% | 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 | 0.47 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.92 | 1.01 | 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 VTI share 73.81% of their weighted exposure across 2,413 common holdings.
126 holdings are unique to DFAC, and 1,086 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
VTI is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 33.24% of the fund, against 26.77% for DFAC (3,524 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 | VTI | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 5.66% | 6.4% | 5.66% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 5.35% | 6.29% | 5.35% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.62% | 4.79% | 4.62% |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 2.9% | 3.65% | 2.9% |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC | 1.98% | 1.7% | 1.7% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 1.55% | 2.9% | 1.55% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.32% | 2.56% | 1.32% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 1.28% | 1.29% | 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 VTI doesn’t
| Holding | DFAC | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| TRVTRAVELERS COMPANIES INC. | 0.24% | 0.11% |
| GMGENERAL MOTORS | 0.24% | 0.11% |
| HPEHEWLETT-PACKARD ENTERPRIS | 0.21% | 0.09% |
| DVNDEVON ENERGY CORP. | 0.2% | 0.07% |
| TGTTARGET CORP. | 0.2% | 0.09% |
| LITELUMENTUM HOLDINGS INC | 0.17% | 0.08% |
What VTI adds that DFAC doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | DFAC |
|---|---|---|
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.31% | 0.99% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 1.22% | 0.24% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.08% | 0.2% |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 0.68% | 0.28% |
| AMATApplied Materials Inc | 0.56% | 0.24% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 0.51% | 0.2% |
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 VTI: five-year payout growth
VTI grew its split-adjusted payout at 6.28% a year over 2020-2025. DFAC began paying distributions in 2021, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | DFAC | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $0.386 | $3.757 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #81 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 55 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 46 vs 44 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs -3.8%; vs 200-day 1.7% vs 0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 80 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6- Today
- Level
- 55 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- DFAC +1
- 57 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 60 vs 60
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Nov 5 when VTI moved ahead of DFAC.
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.
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 +0.39%, AIQ 0 points).
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 | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.5% | -2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.4% | -5.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.6% | -5.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.5% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | 10.6% | 8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13% | 8.7% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | DFAC | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.5 | 36.3 |
| ADX (14) | 14.4 | 19.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | -3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.7% | 0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.7% | 19.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | DFAC | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.92 | 1.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.06 | 0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -8.7% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -5.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.9% | 13.8% |
| 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.
How much do DFAC and VTI overlap?
DFAC and VTI share 73.81% of their weighted exposure across 2,413 common holdings. 126 holdings are unique to DFAC, and 1,086 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, DFAC or VTI?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 2,544 for DFAC.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI 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 1.09% for VTI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 12.9% annualized for DFAC and 13.8% for VTI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
DFAC fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -23.1% against -25.4% for VTI.
Compare DFAC and VTI 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.