MTUM vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
MTUM and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. MTUM is iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. VOO is broader by holdings count, with 508 positions versus 128 for MTUM. VOO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VOO ahead on AIQ Score, 54 versus 52.
What is the main difference between MTUM and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to MTUM's 128, and 27% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | MTUM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 128 | 508 |
| Top-10 concentration | 35.6% | 37.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.73% | 1.1% |
| Average volume | 1,468,769 | 6,909,667 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +2% | +8.5% |
| YTD return | +1.9% | +7.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.9% | +11% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 13.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.5% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.1% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 1.67 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.16 | 0.63 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 52/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 23/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 42/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO leads
VOO leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support VOO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VOO over MTUM, 54 versus 52 as of Nov 7, 2026. VOO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while MTUM holds the stronger value profile. VOO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. VOO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
MTUM 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 | MTUM | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 128 | 508 | VOO |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 35.6% | 37.6% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.73% | 1.1% | VOO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.1% | -24.5% | VOO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 29.1% | 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 MTUM 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.
- Risk Resilience42 vs 77VOO +35
- Value72 vs 43MTUM +29
- Quality61 vs 77VOO +16
- Momentum23 vs 25Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor VOO. VOO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; MTUM keeps a meaningful value 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 +40
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 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.
VOO's lead narrowed by 12 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTUM and VOO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
MTUM (iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 41.6% against 19.8%.
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 | MTUM | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 128 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,468,769 | 6,909,667 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 13.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -27.5% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.46 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.67 | 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
MTUM and VOO share 26.99% of their weighted exposure across 106 common holdings.
19 holdings are unique to MTUM, and 399 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 35.64% for MTUM (508 holdings vs 128). 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 | MTUM | VOO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.62% | 3.24% | 2.62% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.08% | 2.62% | 2.08% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 5.37% | 1.44% | 1.44% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 5.46% | 1.21% | 1.21% |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 2.62% | 1% | 1% |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.32% | 0.96% | 0.96% |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 3.47% | 0.71% | 0.71% |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION | 4.3% | 0.66% | 0.66% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What MTUM adds that VOO doesn’t
| Holding | MTUM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 5.46% | 1.21% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 5.37% | 1.44% |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION | 4.3% | 0.66% |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 3.47% | 0.71% |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.32% | 0.96% |
| SNDKSANDISK | 3.17% | 0.28% |
What VOO adds that MTUM doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | MTUM |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.86% | Not held |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.9% | 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.
MTUM vs VOO: five-year payout growth
MTUM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 11.14% a year against VOO's 5.91%. VOO never reduced its annual distribution in the window; MTUM did in 3 years. MTUM: The 2020 payout was 27.8% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. MTUM: The payout jumped 162.8% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | MTUM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 11.14% | 5.91% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.340 | $5.303 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.273 | $7.068 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #50 of 138 | #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 VOO. 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 | 52 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | MTUM | Value 72 vs 43 |
| Technicals | VOO | Price vs 50-day -15.8% vs -4%; vs 200-day -11.5% vs 0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VOO | Risk Resilience 42 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 MTUM 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 VOO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6VOO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VOO +2
- 52 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- VOO +14
- 42 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +19
- 44 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- VOO +16
- 46 vs 62
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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only MTUM
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.37%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, BB Lower Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VOO 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 +1.85%, AIQ +12 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.
- 1MTUM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to VOO's edge.
- 2MTUM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3VOO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 17 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate VOO's advantage entirely.
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
VOO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MTUM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.8% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.6% | -5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.8% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.9% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | 1.9% | 7.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2% | 8.5% |
Technicals
VOO has the stronger structure| Metric | MTUM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.3 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 36.6 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.8% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.5% | 0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.6% | 19.8% |
Risk
VOO is the more resilient| Metric | MTUM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.67 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.16 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -27.5% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -26.1% | -5.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.1% | 13.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between MTUM and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to MTUM's 128, and 27% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do MTUM and VOO overlap?
MTUM and VOO share 26.99% of their weighted exposure across 106 common holdings. 19 holdings are unique to MTUM, and 399 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, MTUM or VOO?
VOO holds more positions: 508 versus 128 for MTUM.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.15% for MTUM.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VOO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.1% against 0.73% for MTUM.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
MTUM has been more volatile over the past year, at 29.1% annualized against 13.6% for VOO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VOO fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.5% against -32.1% for MTUM.
Compare MTUM 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.