IVW vs VXUS: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IVW and VXUS are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IVW is iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF, while VXUS is Vanguard Total International Stock ETF. VXUS is broader by holdings count, with 8,821 positions versus 151 for IVW. IVW is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VXUS ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 44.
What is the main difference between IVW and VXUS?
IVW puts 54% of its assets in Information Technology, while VXUS spreads across 11 sectors with none above 22%.
| Metric | IVW | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.05% |
| Holdings | 151 | 8,821 |
| Top-10 concentration | 59.6% | 12.9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.38% | 2.45% |
| Average volume | 1,609,623 | 5,257,744 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +4.9% | +9.2% |
| YTD return | +5.2% | +7.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.2% | +7.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.3% | 17.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.4% | -11.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.7% | -28.9% |
| Beta | 1.36 | 1.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.37 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 0.53 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 44/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 32/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF vs Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
VXUS leads
VXUS leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VXUS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VXUS over IVW, 60 versus 44 as of Nov 7, 2026. VXUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. VXUS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VXUS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VXUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 16 points over 30 sessions. VXUS leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF and Vanguard Total International Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IVW 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 | IVW | VXUS | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.05% | VXUS |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 151 | 8,821 | VXUS |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 59.6% | 12.9% | VXUS |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.38% | 2.45% | VXUS |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.7% | -28.9% | VXUS |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.3% | 17.7% | 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 IVW and VXUS 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.
- Value32 vs 60VXUS +28
- Risk Resilience62 vs 76VXUS +14
- Quality65 vs 76VXUS +11
- Momentum24 vs 32VXUS +8
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VXUS. VXUS’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Quality -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
VXUS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IVW 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 | IVW | VXUS | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.05% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 151 | 8,821 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,609,623 | 5,257,744 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.3% | 17.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.4% | -11.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.37 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.36 | 1.09 | 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
IVW and VXUS share 0.01% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings.
146 holdings are unique to IVW, and 8,279 holdings are unique to VXUS. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
IVW is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 59.65% of the fund, against 12.94% for VXUS (151 holdings vs 8,821). 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 | IVW | VXUS | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| TELTE CONNECTIVITY PLC | 0.12% | 0% | 0% |
| FOXFOX CLASS B | 0.01% | 0% | 0% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What IVW adds that VXUS doesn’t
| Holding | IVW | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA | 15.08% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 10.16% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE | 6.45% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET CLASS A | 5.4% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.8% | Not held |
| GOOGALPHABET CLASS C | 4.32% | Not held |
What VXUS adds that IVW doesn’t
| Holding | VXUS | IVW |
|---|---|---|
| 2330.TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 4.02% | Not held |
| 005930.KSSamsung Electronics Co Ltd | 1.8% | Not held |
| ASML.ASASML Holding NV | 1.42% | Not held |
| 000660.KSSK hynix Inc | 1.41% | Not held |
| 0700.HKTencent Holdings Ltd | 0.85% | Not held |
| HSBA.LHSBC Holdings PLC | 0.82% | 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.
IVW vs VXUS: five-year payout growth
VXUS grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 13.28% a year against IVW's -1.07%. IVW: The 2020 payout was 42.8% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. VXUS: The 2020 payout was 24.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. VXUS: The payout jumped 53.0% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. VXUS: A single payment in an endpoint year was 3.9x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | IVW | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | -1.07% | 13.28% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.522 | $1.286 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.495 | $2.399 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #130 of 138 | #43 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VXUS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VXUS | 44 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VXUS | Value 32 vs 60 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -7.4% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day -1.6% vs -2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VXUS | Risk Resilience 62 vs 76 |
| 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 IVW and VXUS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 VXUS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6VXUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VXUS +16
- 44 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- VXUS +13
- 47 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- VXUS +7
- 54 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- VXUS +15
- 53 vs 68
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VXUS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.35%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VXUS 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.94%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.15%, 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.
- 1IVW closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to VXUS's edge.
- 2IVW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3VXUS'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
VXUS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | IVW | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.6% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.5% | -4.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.6% | -4.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.5% | -2.4% |
| Year to date | 5.2% | 7.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.9% | 9.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | IVW | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.7 | 38.3 |
| ADX (14) | 31.4 | 22.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.4% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.6% | -2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27% | 18% |
Risk
VXUS is the more resilient| Metric | IVW | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.36 | 1.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.37 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 0.53 |
| Max drawdown | -13.4% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -11.3% | -8.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.3% | 17.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IVW and VXUS?
IVW puts 54% of its assets in Information Technology, while VXUS spreads across 11 sectors with none above 22%.
How much do IVW and VXUS overlap?
IVW and VXUS share 0.01% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings. 146 holdings are unique to IVW, and 8,279 holdings are unique to VXUS. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, IVW or VXUS?
VXUS holds more positions: 8,821 versus 151 for IVW.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VXUS has the lower expense ratio, 0.05% a year against 0.18% for IVW.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VXUS, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.45% against 0.38% for IVW.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IVW has been more volatile over the past year, at 19.3% annualized against 17.7% for VXUS.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VXUS fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -28.9% against -32.7% for IVW.
Compare IVW 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.