VTI vs VTWO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VTI and VTWO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VTI is Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF, while VTWO is Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF. VTI is broader by holdings count, with 3,524 positions versus 2,001 for VTWO. VTI is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTI ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 57.
What is the main difference between VTI and VTWO?
VTI and VTWO have little in common: 4% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | VTI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 3,524 | 2,001 |
| Top-10 concentration | 33.2% | 3.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.05% | 1.22% |
| Average volume | 3,115,564 | 1,516,718 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.8% | +12.4% |
| YTD return | +12.5% | +11.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.4% | +5.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 18.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -11.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.4% | -31.9% |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 0.94 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 51/100 | 39/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 86/100 | 76/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF vs Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF
VTI leads
VTI leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support VTI, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTI over VTWO, 60 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. VTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while VTWO holds the stronger value profile. VTI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. VTI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF and Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VTI vs VTWO: 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 | VTI | VTWO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.06% | VTI |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 3,524 | 2,001 | VTI |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 33.2% | 3.2% | VTWO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.05% | 1.22% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.4% | -31.9% | VTI |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13% | 18.2% | VTI |
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 VTI and VTWO 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.
- Value42 vs 58VTWO +16
- Quality74 vs 61VTI +13
- Momentum51 vs 39VTI +12
- Risk Resilience86 vs 76VTI +10
2 of 4 evidence groups favor VTI. VTI’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; VTWO keeps a meaningful value 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
VTI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VTI and VTWO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VTI (Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
VTWO (Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 16.1% against 9.8%.
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 | VTWO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 3,524 | 2,001 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,115,564 | 1,516,718 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 18.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -11.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.56 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.18 | 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
VTI and VTWO share 3.98% of their weighted exposure across 1,857 common holdings.
1,642 holdings are unique to VTI, and 140 holdings are unique to VTWO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VTI is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 33.24% of the fund, against 3.16% for VTWO (3,524 holdings vs 2,001). 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 | VTI | VTWO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| HRIHerc Holdings Inc | 0.01% | 0.16% | 0.01% |
| UMBFUMB Financial Corp | 0.01% | 0.34% | 0.01% |
| PIPRPiper Sandler Cos | 0.01% | 0.17% | 0.01% |
| OSCROscar Health Inc | 0.01% | 0.24% | 0.01% |
| SLGSL Green Realty Corp | 0.01% | 0.12% | 0.01% |
| ESEESCO Technologies Inc | 0.01% | 0.26% | 0.01% |
| FFBCFirst Financial Bancorp | 0.01% | 0.11% | 0.01% |
| TWSTTwist Bioscience Corp | 0.01% | 0.18% | 0.01% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What VTI adds that VTWO doesn’t
| Holding | VTI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 6.4% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 6.29% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.79% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 3.65% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.56% | Not held |
What VTWO adds that VTI doesn’t
| Holding | VTWO | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| MOG-AMoog Inc | 0.35% | 0.01% |
| HUTHut 8 Corp | 0.35% | 0.01% |
| UMBFUMB Financial Corp | 0.34% | 0.01% |
| CYTKCytokinetics Inc | 0.32% | 0.01% |
| VSATViasat Inc | 0.31% | 0.01% |
| BTSGBrightSpring Health Services Inc | 0.31% | 0.01% |
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.
VTI vs VTWO: five-year payout growth
VTWO grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 11.18% a year against VTI's 6.28%. VTI never reduced its annual distribution in the window; VTWO did in 1 year. VTWO: The 2020 payout was 19.2% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | VTI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.28% | 11.18% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.770 | $0.732 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.757 | $1.243 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #81 of 138 | #49 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 VTI. 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 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VTWO | Value 42 vs 58 |
| Technicals | VTI | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day 5.3% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | VTI | Risk Resilience 86 vs 76 |
| 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 VTWO 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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)
- 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 VTI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VTI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTI +3
- 60 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- VTI +5
- 59 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- VTI +6
- 60 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- VTI +2
- 66 vs 64
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when VTI moved ahead of VTWO.
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 VTI
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VTWO
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VTI 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 +0.55%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.24%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1VTWO closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTI's edge.
- 2VTWO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate VTI'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
VTI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | VTI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.1% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.2% | -6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.4% | 0.4% |
| Year to date | 12.5% | 11.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.8% | 12.4% |
Technicals
VTI has the stronger structure| Metric | VTI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 46.9 |
| ADX (14) | 13.4 | 41.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.3% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.8% | 16.1% |
Risk
VTI is the more resilient| Metric | VTI | VTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 1.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -11.4% |
| Current drawdown | -1.9% | -9.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 13% | 18.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VTI and VTWO?
VTI and VTWO have little in common: 4% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do VTI and VTWO overlap?
VTI and VTWO share 3.98% of their weighted exposure across 1,857 common holdings. 1,642 holdings are unique to VTI, and 140 holdings are unique to VTWO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, VTI or VTWO?
VTI holds more positions: 3,524 versus 2,001 for VTWO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VTI has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 0.06% for VTWO.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.05% for VTI and 1.22% for VTWO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VTWO has been more volatile over the past year, at 18.2% annualized against 13% for VTI.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VTI fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -25.4% against -31.9% for VTWO.
Compare VTI and VTWO 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.