EMB vs VTI: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
EMB and VTI are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. EMB is iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF, while VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 619 for EMB. VTI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has EMB ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 60.
What is the main difference between EMB and VTI?
EMB puts 87% of its assets in Sovereign, while VTI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
| Metric | EMB | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 619 | 3,524 |
| Top-10 concentration | 6.3% | 33.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 5.41% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 6,815,821 | 3,115,564 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -4.7% | +15.8% |
| YTD return | -5.3% | +12.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +1.4% | +11.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 6.2% | 13% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.8% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -27.5% | -25.4% |
| Beta | 0.32 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.39 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.98 | 1.32 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 46/100 | 51/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 89/100 | 86/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
EMB leads
EMB leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from VTI.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support EMB, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EMB over VTI, 61 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. EMB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while VTI holds the stronger quality profile. EMB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor EMB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. EMB lead: Reversed — VTI led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EMB now leads by 1.
Compare iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
EMB 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 | EMB | VTI | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.39% | 0.03% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 619 | 3,524 | VTI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 6.3% | 33.2% | EMB |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 5.41% | 1.05% | EMB |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -27.5% | -25.4% | VTI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 6.2% | 13% | EMB |
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 EMB 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.
- Value55 vs 42EMB +13
- Quality67 vs 74VTI +7
- Momentum46 vs 51VTI +5
- Risk Resilience89 vs 86Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor EMB. EMB’s edge is concentrated in value; VTI keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
EMB's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EMB and VTI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EMB (iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
VTI (Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, technicals.
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 | EMB | VTI | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.39% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 619 | 3,524 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,815,821 | 3,115,564 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 6.2% | 13% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -7.8% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.39 | 0.86 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.32 | 1.02 | 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
EMB and VTI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
616 holdings are unique to EMB, and 3,499 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VTI is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 33.24% of the fund, against 6.3% for EMB (3,524 holdings vs 619). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What EMB adds that VTI doesn’t
| Holding | EMB | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT 4.13% 07/09/2035 | 1.17% | Not held |
| ECUADOR REPUBLIC OF (GOVERNMENT) RegS 6.90% 07/31/2035 | 0.79% | Not held |
| ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT 5.00% 01/09/2038 | 0.69% | Not held |
| ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT 0.75% 07/09/2030 | 0.67% | Not held |
| GHANA (REPUBLIC OF) DISCO RegS 5.00% 07/03/2035 | 0.57% | Not held |
| ARGENTINA REPUBLIC OF GOVERNMENT 3.50% 07/09/2041 | 0.56% | Not held |
What VTI adds that EMB doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | EMB |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.4% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 6.29% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.79% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 3.65% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.56% | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor EMB. 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 | 61 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | EMB | Value 55 vs 42 |
| Technicals | VTI | Price vs 50-day -1.8% vs 0.2%; vs 200-day -4.1% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 89 vs 86 |
| 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 EMB and VTI 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 1 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 is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 EMB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20EMB lead: Reversed — VTI led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EMB now leads by 1.
- Today
- EMB +1
- 61 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- EMB +1
- 60 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- VTI +4
- 56 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- VTI +7
- 59 vs 66
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when EMB moved ahead of VTI.
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only EMB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.19%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VTI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.66%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling.
EMB 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 +0.24%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1VTI closes the Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMB's edge.
- 2VTI's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3EMB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
VTI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | EMB | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.7% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.1% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.1% | 8.4% |
| Year to date | -5.3% | 12.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.7% | 15.8% |
Technicals
VTI has the stronger structure| Metric | EMB | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.9 | 55.2 |
| ADX (14) | 35.8 | 13.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.8% | 0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.1% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 7.4% | 9.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | EMB | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.39 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.98 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -7.8% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -6.7% | -1.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 6.2% | 13% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.7% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between EMB and VTI?
EMB puts 87% of its assets in Sovereign, while VTI spreads across 11 sectors with none above 38%.
How much do EMB and VTI overlap?
EMB and VTI share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 616 holdings are unique to EMB, and 3,499 holdings are unique to VTI. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, EMB or VTI?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 619 for EMB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.39% for EMB.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
EMB, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 5.41% against 1.05% for VTI.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VTI has been more volatile over the past year, at 13% annualized against 6.2% for EMB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VTI fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -25.4% against -27.5% for EMB.
Compare EMB 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.