QMOM vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QMOM and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QMOM is Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. VOO is broader by holdings count, with 508 positions versus 51 for QMOM. VOO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VOO ahead on AIQ Score, 54 versus 37.
What is the main difference between QMOM and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to QMOM's 51, and 2% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QMOM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.28% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 51 | 508 |
| Top-10 concentration | 22.6% | 37.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.54% | 1.1% |
| Average volume | 20,987 | 6,909,667 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -0.9% | +8.5% |
| YTD return | +0.9% | +7.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +4.3% | +11% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 26.9% | 13.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -19.9% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.8% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 1.51 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.01 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.01 | 0.63 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 37/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 57/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO leads
VOO leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 21 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VOO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VOO over QMOM, 54 versus 37 as of Nov 7, 2026. VOO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. VOO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. VOO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QMOM 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 | QMOM | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.28% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 51 | 508 | VOO |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 22.6% | 37.6% | QMOM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.54% | 1.1% | VOO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.8% | -24.5% | VOO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 26.9% | 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 QMOM 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.
- Quality34 vs 77VOO +43
- Risk Resilience57 vs 77VOO +20
- Value41 vs 43Even
- Momentum24 vs 25Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VOO. VOO’s edge is concentrated in quality 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: Value +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 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 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QMOM and VOO 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 | QMOM | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.28% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 51 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 20,987 | 6,909,667 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 26.9% | 13.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -19.9% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.01 | 0.46 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.51 | 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
QMOM and VOO share 2.42% of their weighted exposure across 15 common holdings.
35 holdings are unique to QMOM, and 490 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 22.57% for QMOM (508 holdings vs 51). 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 | QMOM | VOO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| CATCaterpillar Inc | 2.1% | 0.58% | 0.58% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks Inc | 1.84% | 0.42% | 0.42% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 1.93% | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| DELLDell Technologies Inc | 2.62% | 0.18% | 0.18% |
| FTNTFortinet Inc | 1.93% | 0.16% | 0.16% |
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 2.09% | 0.14% | 0.14% |
| VLOValero Energy Corp | 2.15% | 0.14% | 0.14% |
| HPEHewlett Packard Enterprise Co | 2.45% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What QMOM adds that VOO doesn’t
| Holding | QMOM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| DELLDell Technologies Inc | 2.62% | 0.18% |
| HPEHewlett Packard Enterprise Co | 2.45% | 0.1% |
| ROIVRoivant Sciences Ltd | 2.36% | Not held |
| ARWArrow Electronics Inc | 2.23% | Not held |
| VIAVViavi Solutions Inc | 2.22% | Not held |
| VLOValero Energy Corp | 2.15% | 0.14% |
What VOO adds that QMOM doesn’t
| Holding | VOO | QMOM |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
QMOM vs VOO: five-year payout growth
QMOM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 51.47% a year against VOO's 5.91%. VOO never reduced its annual distribution in the window; QMOM did in 2 years. QMOM: The payout jumped 1064.5% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. QMOM: A single payment in an endpoint year was 13.5x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | QMOM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 51.47% | 5.91% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.044 | $5.303 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.354 | $7.068 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #11 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
3 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 | VOO | 37 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 41 vs 43 |
| Technicals | VOO | Price vs 50-day -9% vs -4%; vs 200-day -10.3% vs 0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VOO | Risk Resilience 57 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 QMOM and VOO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 VOO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6VOO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VOO +17
- 37 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- VOO +17
- 39 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +21
- 42 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- VOO +23
- 39 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.
2 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
Only QMOM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.05%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.83%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.37%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: 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 +0.69%, 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.
- 1QMOM closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to VOO's edge.
- 2QMOM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-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 | QMOM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.2% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.6% | -5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.9% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | 0.9% | 7.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.9% | 8.5% |
Technicals
VOO has the stronger structure| Metric | QMOM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.4 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 29.4 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.3% | 0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.7% | 19.8% |
Risk
VOO is the more resilient| Metric | QMOM | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.51 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.01 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.01 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -19.9% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -19.4% | -5.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.9% | 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 QMOM and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to QMOM's 51, and 2% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QMOM and VOO overlap?
QMOM and VOO share 2.42% of their weighted exposure across 15 common holdings. 35 holdings are unique to QMOM, and 490 holdings are unique to VOO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QMOM or VOO?
VOO holds more positions: 508 versus 51 for QMOM.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.28% for QMOM.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VOO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.1% against 0.54% for QMOM.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QMOM has been more volatile over the past year, at 26.9% 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 -26.8% for QMOM.
Compare QMOM 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.