DFIV vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DFIV and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DFIV is Dimensional - International Value ETF, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. DFIV is broader by holdings count, with 642 positions versus 508 for VOO. VOO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DFIV ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 54.
What is the main difference between DFIV and VOO?
DFIV and VOO have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | DFIV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.27% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 642 | 508 |
| Top-10 concentration | 16.3% | 37.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.8% | 1.1% |
| Average volume | 1,289,382 | 6,909,667 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +20.1% | +8.5% |
| YTD return | +11.7% | +7.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +14.6% | +11% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14.6% | 13.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.7% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.4% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 0.74 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.52 | 0.63 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 46/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Dimensional - International Value ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
DFIV leads
DFIV leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from VOO.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support DFIV, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Dimensional - International Value ETF
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DFIV over VOO, 59 versus 54 as of Nov 7, 2026. DFIV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while VOO holds the stronger quality profile. DFIV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DFIV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. DFIV lead: Reversed — VOO led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DFIV now leads by 5.
Compare Dimensional - International Value ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DFIV 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 | DFIV | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.27% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 642 | 508 | DFIV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 16.3% | 37.6% | DFIV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.8% | 1.1% | DFIV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.4% | -24.5% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14.6% | 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 DFIV 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.
- Momentum46 vs 25DFIV +21
- Value60 vs 43DFIV +17
- Quality61 vs 77VOO +16
- Risk Resilience75 vs 77Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor DFIV. DFIV’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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 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.
DFIV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DFIV and VOO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DFIV (Dimensional - International Value 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 | DFIV | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.27% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 642 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,289,382 | 6,909,667 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14.6% | 13.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.7% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 0.46 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.74 | 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
DFIV and VOO share 0.12% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings.
597 holdings are unique to DFIV, and 503 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 16.3% for DFIV (508 holdings vs 642). 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 | DFIV | VOO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRKMerck & Co Inc | 0.09% | 0.5% | 0.09% |
| IPINTERNATIONAL PAPER | 0.06% | 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 DFIV adds that VOO doesn’t
| Holding | DFIV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| SHELSHELL PLC | 3.34% | Not held |
| TTE.PATOTALENERGIES SE | 2.19% | Not held |
| SAN.MCBANCO SANTANDER SA | 1.96% | Not held |
| 7203.TTOYOTA MOTOR CORP | 1.77% | Not held |
| TDTORONTO-DOMINION BANK | 1.36% | Not held |
| BAS.DEBASF SE | 1.28% | Not held |
What VOO adds that DFIV doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | DFIV |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
DFIV vs VOO: five-year payout growth
VOO grew its split-adjusted payout at 5.91% a year over 2020-2025. DFIV began paying distributions in 2021, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | DFIV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $1.459 | $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
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DFIV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DFIV | 59 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | DFIV | Value 60 vs 43 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs -4%; vs 200-day 0.7% vs 0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 75 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 DFIV 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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 leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 DFIV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6DFIV lead: Reversed — VOO led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DFIV now leads by 5.
- Today
- DFIV +5
- 59 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- DFIV +7
- 63 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +5
- 58 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- DFIV +5
- 67 vs 62
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when DFIV 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 / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only DFIV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
VOO is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -1.17%, 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 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to DFIV's edge.
- 2VOO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3DFIV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
DFIV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DFIV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | -5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.4% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | 11.7% | 7.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20.1% | 8.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | DFIV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.6 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 14.9 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.7% | 0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 19.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | DFIV | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.52 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -9.7% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.7% | -5.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 14.6% | 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 DFIV and VOO?
DFIV and VOO have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do DFIV and VOO overlap?
DFIV and VOO share 0.12% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings. 597 holdings are unique to DFIV, and 503 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, DFIV or VOO?
DFIV holds more positions: 642 versus 508 for VOO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.27% for DFIV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
DFIV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.8% against 1.1% for VOO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
DFIV has been more volatile over the past year, at 14.6% annualized against 13.6% for VOO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -25.4% for DFIV and -24.5% for VOO.
Compare DFIV 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.