VWO vs VT: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VWO and VT are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VWO is Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF, while VT is Vanguard Total World Stock ETF. VT is broader by holdings count, with 10,099 positions versus 5,030 for VWO. VWO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
What is the main difference between VWO and VT?
VWO and VT have little in common: 9% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | VWO | VT |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.06% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 5,030 | 10,099 |
| Top-10 concentration | 26.6% | 21.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.09% | 1.53% |
| Average volume | 7,474,406 | 2,761,894 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +6.9% | +14.6% |
| YTD return | +8.4% | +11.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.5% | +10.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.4% | 14% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.2% | -9.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -29.9% | -26.4% |
| Beta | 1.11 | 1.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.26 | 0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.38 | 1.16 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 34/100 | 47/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 76/100 | 85/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF vs Vanguard Total World Stock ETF
VWO and VT are effectively level
VWO and VT are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF
Vanguard Total World Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate VWO and VT as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VWO vs VT: 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 | VWO | VT | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.06% | 0.06% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 5,030 | 10,099 | VT |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 26.6% | 21.2% | VT |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.09% | 1.53% | VWO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -29.9% | -26.4% | VT |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.4% | 14% | VT |
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 VWO 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.
- Momentum34 vs 47VT +13
- Value60 vs 49VWO +11
- Risk Resilience76 vs 85VT +9
- Quality73 vs 68VWO +5
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VWO and VT 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 | VWO | VT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.06% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 5,030 | 10,099 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 7,474,406 | 2,761,894 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.4% | 14% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.2% | -9.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.26 | 0.75 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.11 | 1.06 | 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
VWO and VT share 9.1% of their weighted exposure across 4,197 common holdings.
365 holdings are unique to VWO, and 5,405 holdings are unique to VT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
VWO is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 26.63% of the fund, against 21.22% for VT (5,030 holdings vs 10,099). 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 | VWO | VT | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2330.TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 14.99% | 1.54% | 1.54% |
| 0700.HKTencent Holdings Ltd | 3.19% | 0.33% | 0.33% |
| 9988.HKAlibaba Group Holding Ltd | 2.33% | 0.24% | 0.24% |
| 2454.TWMediaTek Inc | 1.31% | 0.13% | 0.13% |
| 2308.TWDelta Electronics Inc | 0.99% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| 0939.HKChina Construction Bank Corp | 0.86% | 0.09% | 0.09% |
| 2317.TWHon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd | 0.78% | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| HDFCBANK.NSHDFC Bank Ltd | 0.75% | 0.08% | 0.08% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What VWO adds that VT doesn’t
| Holding | VWO | VT |
|---|---|---|
| 2330.TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 14.99% | 1.54% |
| 0700.HKTencent Holdings Ltd | 3.19% | 0.33% |
| 9988.HKAlibaba Group Holding Ltd | 2.33% | 0.24% |
| 2454.TWMediaTek Inc | 1.31% | 0.13% |
| 2308.TWDelta Electronics Inc | 0.99% | 0.1% |
| 0939.HKChina Construction Bank Corp | 0.86% | 0.09% |
What VT adds that VWO doesn’t
| Holding | VT | VWO |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 4.01% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 3.82% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 2.96% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 2.25% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 1.81% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.55% | 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.
VWO vs VT: five-year payout growth
VT grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 10.87% a year against VWO's 9.41%. VWO: The 2020 payout was 33.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. VWO: A single payment in an endpoint year was 4.0x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result. VT: The 2020 payout was 18.2% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | VWO | VT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.41% | 10.87% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.955 | $1.536 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.497 | $2.573 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #60 of 138 | #54 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 60 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VWO | Value 60 vs 49 |
| Technicals | VT | Price vs 50-day -3% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day -0.1% vs 3.6% |
| Risk Resilience | VT | Risk Resilience 76 vs 85 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VWO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 60 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- VWO +2
- 60 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- VWO +2
- 61 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- VWO +4
- 70 vs 66
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 4 when VWO moved ahead of VT.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VT
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.6%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.12%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.5%, AIQ +1 points).
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 6 of 6 windows| Metric | VWO | VT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.4% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.7% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1% | 1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.1% | 6.1% |
| Year to date | 8.4% | 11.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.9% | 14.6% |
Technicals
VT has the stronger structure| Metric | VWO | VT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.2 | 49.8 |
| ADX (14) | 18.6 | 16.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | 3.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.1% | 10.2% |
Risk
VT is the more resilient| Metric | VWO | VT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.11 | 1.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.26 | 0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.38 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -11.2% | -9.9% |
| Current drawdown | -5.2% | -2.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.4% | 14% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VWO and VT?
VWO and VT have little in common: 9% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do VWO and VT overlap?
VWO and VT share 9.1% of their weighted exposure across 4,197 common holdings. 365 holdings are unique to VWO, and 5,405 holdings are unique to VT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, VWO or VT?
VT holds more positions: 10,099 versus 5,030 for VWO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.06% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VWO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.09% against 1.53% for VT.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
VWO has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.4% annualized against 14% for VT.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VT fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -26.4% against -29.9% for VWO.
Compare VWO and VT 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.