VOO vs VTV ETF Comparison
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF
VTV leads
VTV leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from VOO.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support VTV, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTV over VOO, 62 versus 61 as of Sep 2, 2026. VTV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while VOO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. VTV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. VTV lead: Reversed — VOO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VTV now leads by 1.
Compare Vanguard S&P 500 ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
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.
- Value30%37 vs 46VTV +9
- Risk Resilience15%88 vs 80VOO +8
- Quality30%78 vs 71VOO +7
- Momentum25%55 vs 58Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor VTV. VTV’s edge is concentrated in value; VOO keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
VTV's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VOO and VTV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VTV (Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
VTVVTV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
VTVVTV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
VOOVOO on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | VOO | VTV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $1.70T | $256.5B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 505 | 331 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 8,521,334 | 3,230,845 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 10.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -6.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.07 | 1.67 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.00 | 0.56 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
VOO and VTV share 70.42% of their weighted exposure across 296 common holdings.
VOO is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 57.99% of the fund, against 38.05% for VTV (505 holdings vs 308). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
209 holdings are unique to VOO and 12 to VTV. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | VOO | VTV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRK-BBerkshire Hathaway Inc | 2.91% | 5.98% | 2.91% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 2.88% | 6.9% | 2.88% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 1.92% | 4.59% | 1.92% |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 1.51% | 3.62% | 1.51% |
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 1.46% | 3.5% | 1.46% |
| INTCIntel Corp | 1.32% | 1.35% | 1.32% |
| BACBank of America Corp | 1.26% | 2.94% | 1.26% |
| CATCaterpillar Inc | 1.17% | 2.79% | 1.17% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTV. 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 | 61 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VTV | Value 37 vs 46 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 1.4% vs 1.5%; vs 200-day 7.9% vs 9.2% |
| Risk Resilience | VOO | Risk Resilience 88 vs 80 |
| 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 VOO and VTV 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 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 VTV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1VTV lead: Reversed — VOO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VTV now leads by 1.
- Today
- VTV +1
- 61 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- VTV +2
- 62 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +2
- 68 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- VTV +11
- 55 vs 66
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.19%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.5%)
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.74%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
VTV 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 +0.43%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.46%, 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.
- 1VOO closes the Value gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTV's edge.
- 2VOO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3VTV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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.
Technicals
Split| Metric | VOO | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.5 | 47.3 |
| ADX (14) | 15 | 16.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.4% | 1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.9% | 9.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.4% | 7.1% |
Risk
VOO is the more resilient| Metric | VOO | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.07 | 1.67 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.52 | 2.6 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -6.9% |
| Current drawdown | -1.4% | -1.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 10.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, VOO or VTV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VTV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 62 against VOO's 61. The edge comes from value. VOO is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is VOO or VTV the better buy right now?
VTV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VTV over VOO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. VTV leads Value by 9 points; VOO leads Risk Resilience by 8 points; VOO leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, VOO or VTV?
VTV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VTV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, VOO or VTV?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, VOO or VTV?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, VOO or VTV?
VOO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VOO on Risk Resilience, by 8 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is VOO more profitable than VTV?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is VTV's lead over VOO getting stronger or weaker?
VTV lead: Reversed — VOO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VTV now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the VOO vs VTV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VOO closes the Value gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTV's edge; VOO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; VTV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about VOO and VTV?
VOO: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VTV: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on VOO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VTV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare VOO and VTV with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.