VUG vs VTV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VUG and VTV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VUG is Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF, while VTV is Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF. VTV is broader by holdings count, with 311 positions versus 150 for VUG. VUG is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTV ahead on AIQ Score, 68 versus 53.
What is the main difference between VUG and VTV?
VUG puts 58% of its assets in Technology, while VTV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 22%.
| Metric | VUG | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 150 | 311 |
| Top-10 concentration | 63.6% | 22.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.39% | 1.85% |
| Average volume | 6,445,771 | 2,820,884 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.8% | +21.5% |
| YTD return | +9.1% | +17.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +12.3% | +12% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.9% | 10.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.7% | -6.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.6% | -17% |
| Beta | 1.34 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 1.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.74 | 2.48 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 68/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 41/100 | 81/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 78/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF
VTV leads
VTV leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from VUG.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VTV, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTV over VUG, 68 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. VTV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while VUG holds the stronger quality profile. VTV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. VTV lead: Reversed — VUG led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VTV now leads by 15.
Compare Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VUG vs VTV: 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 | VUG | VTV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 150 | 311 | VTV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 63.6% | 22.5% | VTV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.39% | 1.85% | VTV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.6% | -17% | VTV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.9% | 10.2% | VTV |
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 VUG and VTV 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.
- Momentum41 vs 81VTV +40
- Value32 vs 49VTV +17
- Risk Resilience72 vs 78VTV +6
- Quality75 vs 71VUG +4
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VTV. VTV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; VUG 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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
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
VTV's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VUG and VTV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VTV (Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
VUG (Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 14.6% against 8.9%.
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 | VUG | VTV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 150 | 311 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 6,445,771 | 2,820,884 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.9% | 10.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.7% | -6.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 1.53 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.34 | 0.55 | 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
VUG and VTV share 3.34% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings.
126 holdings are unique to VUG, and 287 holdings are unique to VTV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VUG is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 63.61% of the fund, against 22.48% for VTV (150 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 | VUG | VTV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| GEGeneral Electric Co | 0.54% | 0.7% | 0.54% |
| INTCIntel Corp | 0.52% | 0.67% | 0.52% |
| TXNTexas Instruments Inc | 0.36% | 0.47% | 0.36% |
| UBERUber Technologies Inc | 0.22% | 0.27% | 0.22% |
| SYKStryker Corp | 0.17% | 0.21% | 0.17% |
| GLWCorning Inc | 0.16% | 0.2% | 0.16% |
| ADBEAdobe Inc | 0.16% | 0.19% | 0.16% |
| BXBlackstone Inc | 0.15% | 0.18% | 0.15% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What VUG adds that VTV doesn’t
| Holding | VUG | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 12.81% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 12.6% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 9.59% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.8% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 5.15% | Not held |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 4.63% | Not held |
What VTV adds that VUG doesn’t
| Holding | VTV | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 3.5% | Not held |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 3.45% | Not held |
| BRK-BBerkshire Hathaway Inc | 2.99% | Not held |
| XOMExxonMobil Holdings Corp | 2.39% | Not held |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 2.29% | Not held |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 1.81% | 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.
VUG vs VTV: five-year payout growth
VTV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.14% a year against VUG's 3.61%.
| Dividend metric | VUG | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 3.61% | 5.14% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.281 | $3.040 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.335 | $3.906 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #112 of 138 | #94 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
3 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 | 53 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VTV | Value 32 vs 49 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs 0.9%; vs 200-day 5.9% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | VTV | Risk Resilience 72 vs 78 |
| 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 VUG 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 wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 VTV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VTV lead: Reversed — VUG led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VTV now leads by 15.
- Today
- VTV +15
- 53 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- VTV +8
- 57 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- VUG +6
- 62 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- VTV +3
- 62 vs 65
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when VTV moved ahead of VUG.
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 / 3 neutral, conflicted
Only VUG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VTV
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish.
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 +0.85%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1VUG closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTV's edge.
- 2VUG'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 | VUG | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.4% | 1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.7% | 1.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.5% | 2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.8% | 10.6% |
| Year to date | 9.1% | 17.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.8% | 21.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | VUG | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.7 | 80.2 |
| ADX (14) | 18.1 | 24.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | 0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.9% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.6% | 8.9% |
Risk
VTV is the more resilient| Metric | VUG | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.34 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 1.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.74 | 2.48 |
| Max drawdown | -16.7% | -6.9% |
| Current drawdown | -4.3% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.9% | 10.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VUG and VTV?
VUG puts 58% of its assets in Technology, while VTV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 22%.
How much do VUG and VTV overlap?
VUG and VTV share 3.34% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings. 126 holdings are unique to VUG, and 287 holdings are unique to VTV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, VUG or VTV?
VTV holds more positions: 311 versus 150 for VUG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.03% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VTV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.85% against 0.39% for VUG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VUG has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.9% annualized against 10.2% for VTV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VTV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17% against -35.6% for VUG.
Compare VUG and VTV 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.