VB vs VT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VB and VT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VB is Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF, while VT is Vanguard Total World Stock ETF. VT is broader by holdings count, with 10,099 positions versus 1,314 for VB. VT is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
What is the main difference between VB and VT?
VT holds 10,099 positions to VB's 1,314, and 7% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | VB | VT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 1,314 | 10,099 |
| Top-10 concentration | 4.1% | 21.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.27% | 1.53% |
| Average volume | 510,292 | 2,761,894 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +13.8% | +14.6% |
| YTD return | +11.7% | +11.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6% | +10.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 14% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.3% | -9.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -28.2% | -26.4% |
| Beta | 1.03 | 1.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 1.16 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 54/100 | 47/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 85/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF vs Vanguard Total World Stock ETF
VB and VT are effectively level
VB and VT are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF
Vanguard Total World Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate VB and VT as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VB vs VT: 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 | VB | VT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.06% | VB |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,314 | 10,099 | VT |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 4.1% | 21.2% | VB |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.27% | 1.53% | VT |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -28.2% | -26.4% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.9% | 14% | VT |
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 VB and VT 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.
- Momentum54 vs 47VB +7
- Risk Resilience80 vs 85VT +5
- Quality64 vs 68VT +4
- Value51 vs 49Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +15
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
VT's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VB and VT 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 | VB | VT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,314 | 10,099 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 510,292 | 2,761,894 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 14% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.3% | -9.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.75 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.03 | 1.06 | 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
VB and VT share 6.76% of their weighted exposure across 1,080 common holdings.
225 holdings are unique to VB, and 8,521 holdings are unique to VT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VT is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 21.22% of the fund, against 4.08% for VB (10,099 holdings vs 1,314). 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 | VB | VT | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALABAstera Labs Inc | 0.3% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| FLEXFlex Ltd | 0.26% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| RVMDRevolution Medicines Inc | 0.47% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| ILMNIllumina Inc | 0.37% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| TWLOTwilio Inc | 0.37% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| CNCCentene Corp | 0.19% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| STLDSteel Dynamics Inc | 0.21% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| EMEEMCOR Group Inc | 0.44% | 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 VB adds that VT doesn’t
| Holding | VB | VT |
|---|---|---|
| RVMDRevolution Medicines Inc | 0.47% | 0.03% |
| NTRANatera Inc | 0.45% | 0.03% |
| EMEEMCOR Group Inc | 0.44% | 0.03% |
| CRDOCredo Technology Group Holding Ltd | 0.43% | 0.03% |
| JBLJabil Inc | 0.41% | 0.03% |
| CASYCasey's General Stores Inc | 0.4% | 0.03% |
What VT adds that VB doesn’t
| Holding | VT | VB |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 4.01% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 3.82% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 2.96% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 2.25% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 1.81% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.55% | 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.
VB vs VT: five-year payout growth
VT grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 10.87% a year against VB's 9.10%. VT: The 2020 payout was 18.2% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | VB | VT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.10% | 10.87% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.225 | $1.536 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.439 | $2.573 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #63 of 138 | #54 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 60 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 51 vs 49 |
| Technicals | VT | Price vs 50-day -1.8% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 0.9% vs 3.6% |
| Risk Resilience | VT | Risk Resilience 80 vs 85 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 60 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 58 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- VT +4
- 55 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- VT +2
- 64 vs 66
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when VT moved ahead of VB.
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 / 1 neutral
Only VB
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.6%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
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 +0.44%, AIQ +4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.5%, AIQ +1 points).
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
VT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | VB | VT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.5% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.8% | 1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.4% | 6.1% |
| Year to date | 11.7% | 11.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.8% | 14.6% |
Technicals
VT has the stronger structure| Metric | VB | VT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.8 | 49.8 |
| ADX (14) | 35.8 | 16.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.8% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.9% | 3.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.8% | 10.2% |
Risk
VT is the more resilient| Metric | VB | VT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.03 | 1.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -9.3% | -9.9% |
| Current drawdown | -6.9% | -2.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.9% | 14% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VB and VT?
VT holds 10,099 positions to VB's 1,314, and 7% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do VB and VT overlap?
VB and VT share 6.76% of their weighted exposure across 1,080 common holdings. 225 holdings are unique to VB, and 8,521 holdings are unique to VT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, VB or VT?
VT holds more positions: 10,099 versus 1,314 for VB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VB has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.06% for VT.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VT, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.53% against 1.27% for VB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VB has been more volatile over the past year, at 15.9% annualized against 14% for VT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -28.2% for VB and -26.4% for VT.
Compare VB and VT 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.