VBR vs VT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VBR and VT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VBR is Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap Value ETF, while VT is Vanguard Total World Stock ETF. VT is broader by holdings count, with 10,099 positions versus 845 for VBR. VT is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VBR ahead on AIQ Score, 65 versus 60.
What is the main difference between VBR and VT?
VT holds 10,099 positions to VBR's 845, and 4% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | VBR | VT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.05% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 845 | 10,099 |
| Top-10 concentration | 5.6% | 21.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.85% | 1.53% |
| Average volume | 260,170 | 2,761,894 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.4% | +14.6% |
| YTD return | +12.8% | +11.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +8.1% | +10.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 14% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.8% | -9.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -24.2% | -26.4% |
| Beta | 0.77 | 1.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.51 | 1.16 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 65/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 66/100 | 47/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 83/100 | 85/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap Value ETF vs Vanguard Total World Stock ETF
VBR leads
VBR leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from VT.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support VBR, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap Value ETF
Vanguard Total World Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VBR over VT, 65 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. VBR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while VT holds the stronger quality profile. VBR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VBR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. VBR lead: Reversed — VT led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VBR now leads by 5.
Compare Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap Value ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VBR 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 | VBR | VT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.05% | 0.06% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 845 | 10,099 | VT |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 5.6% | 21.2% | VBR |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.85% | 1.53% | VBR |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -24.2% | -26.4% | VBR |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14% | 14% | Similar |
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 VBR 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.
- Momentum66 vs 47VBR +19
- Value60 vs 49VBR +11
- Quality59 vs 68VT +9
- Risk Resilience83 vs 85Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor VBR. VBR’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; VT 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 +10
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
VBR's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VBR and VT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VBR (Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
VT (Vanguard Total World Stock ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
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 | VBR | VT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.05% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 845 | 10,099 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 260,170 | 2,761,894 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 14% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.8% | -9.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.75 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.77 | 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
VBR and VT share 4.22% of their weighted exposure across 692 common holdings.
146 holdings are unique to VBR, and 8,909 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 5.58% for VBR (10,099 holdings vs 845). 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 | VBR | VT | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| FLEXFlex Ltd | 0.22% | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| ILMNIllumina Inc | 0.31% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| CNCCentene Corp | 0.33% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| STLDSteel Dynamics Inc | 0.37% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| EMEEMCOR Group Inc | 0.38% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| EQTEQT Corp | 0.18% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| JBLJabil Inc | 0.71% | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| TPRTapestry Inc | 0.66% | 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 VBR adds that VT doesn’t
| Holding | VBR | VT |
|---|---|---|
| JBLJabil Inc | 0.71% | 0.03% |
| TPRTapestry Inc | 0.66% | 0.03% |
| ATOAtmos Energy Corp | 0.61% | 0.02% |
| NRGNRG Energy Inc | 0.6% | 0.02% |
| WSMWilliams-Sonoma Inc | 0.57% | 0.02% |
| SWSmurfit Westrock PLC | 0.51% | 0.02% |
What VT adds that VBR doesn’t
| Holding | VT | VBR |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
VBR vs VT: five-year payout growth
VBR grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 11.61% a year against VT's 10.87%. VBR never reduced its annual distribution in the window; VT did in 1 year. VBR: The 2020 payout was 15.4% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. VT: The 2020 payout was 18.2% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | VBR | VT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 11.61% | 10.87% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.389 | $1.536 |
| 2025 annual payout | $4.137 | $2.573 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #48 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
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VBR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VBR | 65 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VBR | Value 60 vs 49 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 2.2% vs 3.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 83 vs 85 |
| 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 VBR and VT 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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)
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 VBR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VBR lead: Reversed — VT led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VBR now leads by 5.
- Today
- VBR +5
- 65 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- VBR +2
- 60 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- VT +4
- 55 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- VT +3
- 63 vs 66
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when VBR moved ahead of VT.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VBR
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VT
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.6%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
VBR 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 +0.21%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.5%, 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.
- 1VT closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to VBR's edge.
- 2VT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VBR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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
VBR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | VBR | VT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.1% | 1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.9% | 6.1% |
| Year to date | 12.8% | 11.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.4% | 14.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | VBR | VT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.2 | 49.8 |
| ADX (14) | 34.9 | 16.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.2% | 3.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.7% | 10.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | VBR | VT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.77 | 1.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.51 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -8.8% | -9.9% |
| Current drawdown | -5.1% | -2.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 14% | 14% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VBR and VT?
VT holds 10,099 positions to VBR's 845, and 4% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do VBR and VT overlap?
VBR and VT share 4.22% of their weighted exposure across 692 common holdings. 146 holdings are unique to VBR, and 8,909 holdings are unique to VT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, VBR or VT?
VT holds more positions: 10,099 versus 845 for VBR.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.05% for VBR and 0.06% for VT.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VBR, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.85% against 1.53% for VT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 14% annualized for VBR and 14% for VT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VBR fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.2% against -26.4% for VT.
Compare VBR 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.