VTI vs VT ETF Comparison
Compare VTI and VT across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between VTI and VT?
VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF, while VT is Vanguard Total World Stock ETF. VTI is tied to Large Cap Equity; VT is tied to Global Equity. VT is broader by holdings count, with 9,604 positions versus 3,482 for VTI. VTI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | VTI | VT | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.06% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $2.30T | $97.9B | Fund |
| Holdings | 3,482 | 9,604 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 51.4% | 31.6% | Fund |
| Average volume | 4,488,042 | 2,457,795 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Large Cap Equity | Global Equity | Fund |
| 1Y return | +20.6% | +21.8% | Performance |
| YTD return | +13.6% | +14.7% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 13.1% | 14% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -9.9% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.05 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.17 | 1.18 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.68 | 1.71 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 62/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 9/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 55/100 | 59/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 88/100 | 86/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF vs Vanguard Total World Stock ETF
VT leads
VT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support VT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Vanguard Total World Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VT over VTI, 62 versus 60 as of Sep 5, 2026. VT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while VTI holds the stronger quality profile. VT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. VT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare VTI 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.
- Value30%37 vs 45VT +8
- Quality30%74 vs 69VTI +5
- Momentum25%55 vs 59VT +4
- Risk Resilience15%88 vs 86Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor VT. VT’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; VTI keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Value -1
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
VT's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VTI and VT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VT (Vanguard Total World Stock ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
VTI (Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF): the counter-case, on 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
VTVT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
VTVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
VTVT on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
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 | VTI | VT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $2.30T | $97.9B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 3,598 | 9,773 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 4,488,042 | 2,457,795 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.1% | 14% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -9.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.17 | 1.18 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.05 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
VTI and VT share 92.91% of their weighted exposure across 1499 common holdings.
VTI is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 51.44% of the fund, against 31.56% for VT (3482 holdings vs 9604). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
1983 holdings are unique to VTI and 8105 to VT. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | VTI | VT | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple Inc | 12.58% | 7.65% | 7.65% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 9.57% | 5.91% | 5.91% |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 7.29% | 4.51% | 4.51% |
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.4% | 4.01% | 4.01% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | 1.81% | 1.81% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 2.57% | 1.59% | 1.59% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co | 2.7% | 1.57% | 1.57% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.56% | 1.55% | 1.55% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, VTI or VT?
VT currently has more reported holdings, with 9,604 positions versus 3,482.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VT has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VTI has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
VT currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 62 to 60.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VT. 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 | 60 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VT | Value 37 vs 45 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 1.7% vs 2.3%; vs 200-day 8.5% vs 8.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 88 vs 86 |
| 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 VTI 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 VT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4VT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VT +2
- 60 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- VT +2
- 60 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 66 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 64 vs 64
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 3 when VT moved ahead of VTI.
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 (6.40%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.0%)
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.86%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
VT 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 down over the latest session (price -0.32%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.02%, 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.
- 1VTI closes the Value gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to VT's edge.
- 2VTI generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3VT'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.
Performance
VT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | VTI | VT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2% | 2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 13.4% | 12.7% |
| Year to date | 13.6% | 14.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20.6% | 21.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | VTI | VT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.5 | 47.9 |
| ADX (14) | 13.3 | 13.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.7% | 2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.5% | 8.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.8% | 8.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | VTI | VT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.17 | 1.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.68 | 1.71 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -9.9% |
| Current drawdown | -0.9% | -0.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.1% | 14% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, VTI or VT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 62 against VTI's 60. The edge comes from value and momentum. VTI is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 VTI or VT the better buy right now?
VT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VT over VTI?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. VT leads Value by 8 points; VTI leads Quality by 5 points; VT leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, VTI or VT?
VT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, VTI or VT?
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, VTI or VT?
VT on the Momentum factor, by 4 points. 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, VTI or VT?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is VTI more profitable than VT?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is VT's lead over VTI getting stronger or weaker?
VT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-03, when VT moved ahead of VTI.
What would change the VTI vs VT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VTI closes the Value gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to VT's edge; VTI generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; VT'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 VTI and VT?
VTI: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VT: 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 VTI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare VTI and VT 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.