VTV vs VYM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VTV and VYM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VTV is Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF, while VYM is Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF. VYM is broader by holdings count, with 613 positions versus 311 for VTV. VYM is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTV ahead on AIQ Score, 68 versus 64.
| Metric | VTV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 311 | 613 |
| Top-10 concentration | 22.5% | 26.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.85% | 2.28% |
| Average volume | 2,820,884 | 1,227,061 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +21.5% | +15.5% |
| YTD return | +17.6% | +12.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +12% | +11.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.2% | 10.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.9% | -7.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -17% | -15.9% |
| Beta | 0.55 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.53 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.48 | 1.71 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 68/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 10/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 81/100 | 67/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 78/100 | 80/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
VTV leads
VTV leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support VTV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF
Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTV over VYM, 68 versus 64 as of Oct 21, 2026. VTV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. VTV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. VTV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VTV vs VYM: 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 | VTV | VYM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.04% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 311 | 613 | VYM |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 22.5% | 26.2% | VTV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.85% | 2.28% | VYM |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -17% | -15.9% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.2% | 10.1% | 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 VTV and VYM 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.
- Momentum81 vs 67VTV +14
- Quality71 vs 65VTV +6
- Value49 vs 52Even
- Risk Resilience78 vs 80Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor VTV. VTV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 +17
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VTV's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VTV and VYM 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 | VTV | VYM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 311 | 613 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,820,884 | 1,227,061 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.2% | 10.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.9% | -7.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.53 | 1.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.55 | 0.56 | 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
VTV and VYM share 70.27% of their weighted exposure across 198 common holdings.
110 holdings are unique to VTV, and 406 holdings are unique to VYM. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
VYM is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 26.16% of the fund, against 22.48% for VTV (613 holdings vs 311). 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 | VTV | VYM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 3.5% | 3.82% | 3.5% |
| XOMExxonMobil Holdings Corp | 2.39% | 2.63% | 2.39% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 2.29% | 2.51% | 2.29% |
| ABBVAbbVie Inc | 1.65% | 1.8% | 1.65% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc | 1.53% | 1.86% | 1.53% |
| BACBank of America Corp | 1.47% | 1.67% | 1.47% |
| CATCaterpillar Inc | 1.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% |
| UNHUnitedHealth Group Inc | 1.4% | 1.52% | 1.4% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What VTV adds that VYM doesn’t
| Holding | VTV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 3.45% | Not held |
| BRK-BBerkshire Hathaway Inc | 2.99% | Not held |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 1.81% | Not held |
| TMOThermo Fisher Scientific Inc | 0.79% | Not held |
| GEGeneral Electric Co | 0.7% | Not held |
| AXPAmerican Express Co | 0.68% | Not held |
What VYM adds that VTV doesn’t
| Holding | VYM | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 7.36% | Not held |
| TXNTexas Instruments Inc | 1.02% | 0.47% |
| ORCLOracle Corp | 0.9% | Not held |
| MCDMcDonald's Corp | 0.78% | Not held |
| SBUXStarbucks Corp | 0.49% | Not held |
| BXBlackstone Inc | 0.39% | 0.18% |
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.
VTV vs VYM: five-year payout growth
VTV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.14% a year against VYM's 3.79%. VYM never reduced its annual distribution in the window; VTV did in 1 year.
| Dividend metric | VTV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.14% | 3.79% |
| 2020 annual payout | $3.040 | $2.906 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.906 | $3.501 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #94 of 138 | #21 of 33 |
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 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 | VTV | 68 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 49 vs 52 |
| Technicals | VTV | Price vs 50-day 0.9% vs 0%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs 2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 78 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 VTV and VYM 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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 VTV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VTV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTV +4
- 68 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VTV +4
- 65 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- VTV +2
- 56 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- VTV +2
- 65 vs 63
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 10 when VYM moved ahead of VTV.
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VTV
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VYM
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, AIQ +4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, 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.
- 1VYM closes the Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTV's edge.
- 2VYM's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VTV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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
VTV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | VTV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.3% | 1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.4% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.6% | 4.4% |
| Year to date | 17.6% | 12.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.5% | 15.5% |
Technicals
VTV has the stronger structure| Metric | VTV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.2 | 80.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.8 | 24.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.9% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | 2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.9% | 8.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | VTV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.55 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.53 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.48 | 1.71 |
| Max drawdown | -6.9% | -7.2% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.2% | 10.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do VTV and VYM overlap?
VTV and VYM share 70.27% of their weighted exposure across 198 common holdings. 110 holdings are unique to VTV, and 406 holdings are unique to VYM. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, VTV or VYM?
VYM holds more positions: 613 versus 311 for VTV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.03% for VTV and 0.04% for VYM.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VYM, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.28% against 1.85% for VTV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 10.2% annualized for VTV and 10.1% for VYM.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -17% for VTV and -15.9% for VYM.
Compare VTV and VYM 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.