VXUS vs XHB: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VXUS and XHB are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VXUS is Vanguard Total International Stock ETF, while XHB is State Street SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF. VXUS is broader by holdings count, with 8,821 positions versus 35 for XHB. XHB is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VXUS ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 53.
What is the main difference between VXUS and XHB?
XHB puts 63% of its assets in Consumer Cyclical, while VXUS spreads across 11 sectors with none above 22%.
| Metric | VXUS | XHB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.05% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 8,821 | 35 |
| Top-10 concentration | 12.9% | 39.3% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.37% | 1.12% |
| Average volume | 5,266,735 | 2,137,161 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.7% | -10% |
| YTD return | +11% | -4.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +8.3% | +5.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.2% | 28.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.4% | -23.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -28.9% | -39.5% |
| Beta | 1.12 | 1.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | -0.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.68 | -0.67 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 64/100 | 53/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 46/100 | 49/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 83/100 | 53/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Total International Stock ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF
VXUS leads
VXUS leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VXUS, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
State Street SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VXUS over XHB, 64 versus 53 as of Oct 31, 2026. VXUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. VXUS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VXUS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability. VXUS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vanguard Total International Stock ETF and State Street SPDR S&P Homebuilders ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VXUS vs XHB: 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 | VXUS | XHB | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.05% | 0.35% | VXUS |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 8,821 | 35 | VXUS |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 12.9% | 39.3% | VXUS |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.37% | 1.12% | VXUS |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -28.9% | -39.5% | VXUS |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.2% | 28.1% | VXUS |
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 VXUS and XHB 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.
- Risk Resilience83 vs 53VXUS +30
- Quality75 vs 54VXUS +21
- Value59 vs 54VXUS +5
- Momentum46 vs 49Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VXUS. VXUS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
Largest factor move: Quality -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Quality -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
VXUS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VXUS and XHB 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 | VXUS | XHB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.05% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 8,821 | 35 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 5,266,735 | 2,137,161 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.2% | 28.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.4% | -23.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | -0.36 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.12 | 1.13 | 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
VXUS and XHB share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
8,281 holdings are unique to VXUS, and 33 holdings are unique to XHB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
XHB is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 39.31% of the fund, against 12.94% for VXUS (35 holdings vs 8,821). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What VXUS adds that XHB doesn’t
| Holding | VXUS | XHB |
|---|---|---|
| 2330.TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 4.02% | Not held |
| 005930.KSSamsung Electronics Co Ltd | 1.8% | Not held |
| ASML.ASASML Holding NV | 1.42% | Not held |
| 000660.KSSK hynix Inc | 1.41% | Not held |
| 0700.HKTencent Holdings Ltd | 0.85% | Not held |
| HSBA.LHSBC Holdings PLC | 0.82% | Not held |
What XHB adds that VXUS doesn’t
| Holding | XHB | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| ALLEALLEGION PLC | 4.42% | Not held |
| OCOWENS CORNING | 4.18% | Not held |
| WSMWILLIAMS SONOMA INC | 4.08% | Not held |
| SKYCHAMPION HOMES INC | 3.94% | Not held |
| IBPINSTALLED BUILDING PRODUCTS | 3.9% | Not held |
| JCIJOHNSON CONTROLS INTERNATION | 3.87% | 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.
VXUS vs XHB: five-year payout growth
XHB grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 13.70% a year against VXUS's 13.28%. VXUS: The 2020 payout was 24.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. VXUS: The payout jumped 53.0% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. VXUS: A single payment in an endpoint year was 3.9x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | VXUS | XHB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 13.28% | 13.70% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.286 | $0.422 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.399 | $0.802 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #43 of 138 | #42 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 VXUS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VXUS | 64 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VXUS | Value 59 vs 54 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -3.9% vs 2.2%; vs 200-day 0.5% vs -6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VXUS | Risk Resilience 83 vs 53 |
| 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 VXUS and XHB and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 VXUS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30VXUS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VXUS +11
- 64 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- VXUS +7
- 59 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- VXUS +11
- 61 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- VXUS +19
- 68 vs 49
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only VXUS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.82%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.03%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only XHB
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.50%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
XHB is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -1.53%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.3%, 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.
- 1XHB closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to VXUS's edge.
- 2XHB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VXUS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
VXUS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | VXUS | XHB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | 2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | 2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.2% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.1% | -5.8% |
| Year to date | 11% | -4.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.7% | -10% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | VXUS | XHB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.3 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 22.4 | 19 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.9% | 2.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.5% | -6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.6% | 25.5% |
Risk
VXUS is the more resilient| Metric | VXUS | XHB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.12 | 1.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | -0.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.68 | -0.67 |
| Max drawdown | -11.4% | -23.5% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -19.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.2% | 28.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VXUS and XHB?
XHB puts 63% of its assets in Consumer Cyclical, while VXUS spreads across 11 sectors with none above 22%.
How much do VXUS and XHB overlap?
VXUS and XHB share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 8,281 holdings are unique to VXUS, and 33 holdings are unique to XHB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, VXUS or XHB?
VXUS holds more positions: 8,821 versus 35 for XHB.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VXUS has the lower expense ratio, 0.05% a year against 0.35% for XHB.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VXUS, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.37% against 1.12% for XHB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XHB has been more volatile over the past year, at 28.1% annualized against 17.2% for VXUS.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VXUS fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -28.9% against -39.5% for XHB.
Compare VXUS and XHB 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.