VXUS vs XOP: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
VXUS and XOP are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. VXUS is Vanguard Total International Stock ETF, while XOP is State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF. VXUS is broader by holdings count, with 8,821 positions versus 54 for XOP. XOP is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VXUS ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 62.
What is the main difference between VXUS and XOP?
XOP puts 96% of its assets in Energy, while VXUS spreads across 11 sectors with none above 22%.
| Metric | VXUS | XOP |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.05% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 8,821 | 54 |
| Top-10 concentration | 12.9% | 31% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.37% | 1.56% |
| Average volume | 5,266,735 | 2,969,350 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.7% | +56% |
| YTD return | +11% | +58.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +8.3% | +15.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.2% | 28.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.4% | -18.7% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -28.9% | -35% |
| Beta | 1.12 | -0.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | 1.63 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.68 | 2.48 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 64/100 | 62/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 46/100 | 70/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 83/100 | 33/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Vanguard Total International Stock ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF
VXUS leads
VXUS leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support VXUS, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VXUS over XOP, 64 versus 62 as of Oct 31, 2026. VXUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while XOP holds the stronger momentum profile. VXUS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor VXUS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. VXUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Vanguard Total International Stock ETF and State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
VXUS vs XOP: 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 | XOP | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.05% | 0.35% | VXUS |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 8,821 | 54 | VXUS |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 12.9% | 31% | VXUS |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.37% | 1.56% | VXUS |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -28.9% | -35% | VXUS |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.2% | 28.7% | 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 XOP 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 33VXUS +50
- Momentum46 vs 70XOP +24
- Quality76 vs 69VXUS +7
1 of 3 evidence groups favor VXUS. VXUS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; XOP keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +14
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: VXUS moved ahead of XOP in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VXUS and XOP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VXUS (Vanguard Total International Stock ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
XOP (State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 25.6% against 11.6%.
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 | XOP | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.05% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 8,821 | 54 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 5,266,735 | 2,969,350 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.2% | 28.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.4% | -18.7% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | 1.63 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.12 | -0.51 | 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 XOP share 0.02% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.
8,280 holdings are unique to VXUS, and 51 holdings are unique to XOP. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
XOP is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 31% of the fund, against 12.94% for VXUS (54 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.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | VXUS | XOP | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| APAAPA CORP | 0.02% | 2.52% | 0.02% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What VXUS adds that XOP doesn’t
| Holding | VXUS | XOP |
|---|---|---|
| 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 XOP adds that VXUS doesn’t
| Holding | XOP | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| PBFPBF ENERGY INC CLASS A | 3.89% | Not held |
| DINOHF SINCLAIR CORP | 3.27% | Not held |
| DKDELEK US HOLDINGS INC | 3.27% | Not held |
| VLOVALERO ENERGY CORP | 3.21% | Not held |
| MPCMARATHON PETROLEUM CORP | 3.2% | Not held |
| PARRPAR PACIFIC HOLDINGS INC | 3.12% | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 3 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 | Even | 64 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | XOP | Price vs 50-day -3.9% vs 6.6%; vs 200-day 0.5% vs 17.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VXUS | Risk Resilience 83 vs 33 |
| 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 XOP 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 3 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'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 · Jun 29 – Oct 28VXUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VXUS +2
- 64 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- XOP +6
- 59 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- VXUS +6
- 62 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- VXUS +6
- 67 vs 61
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 28 when VXUS moved ahead of XOP.
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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.03%)
5 bullish / 0 bearish
Only XOP
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.9%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish 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 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.53%, AIQ +3 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.13%, 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.
- 1XOP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to VXUS's edge.
- 2XOP's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3VXUS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate VXUS'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
XOP leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | VXUS | XOP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | 11.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.2% | 14.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.1% | 12.7% |
| Year to date | 11% | 58.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.7% | 56% |
Technicals
XOP has the stronger structure| Metric | VXUS | XOP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.3 | 58.9 |
| ADX (14) | 22.4 | 22.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.9% | 6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.5% | 17.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.6% | 25.6% |
Risk
VXUS is the more resilient| Metric | VXUS | XOP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.12 | -0.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | 1.63 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.68 | 2.48 |
| Max drawdown | -11.4% | -18.7% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -2.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.2% | 28.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -3% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between VXUS and XOP?
XOP puts 96% of its assets in Energy, while VXUS spreads across 11 sectors with none above 22%.
How much do VXUS and XOP overlap?
VXUS and XOP share 0.02% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 8,280 holdings are unique to VXUS, and 51 holdings are unique to XOP. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, VXUS or XOP?
VXUS holds more positions: 8,821 versus 54 for XOP.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VXUS has the lower expense ratio, 0.05% a year against 0.35% for XOP.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VXUS, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.37% against 1.56% for XOP.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
XOP has been more volatile over the past year, at 28.7% 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 -35% for XOP.
Compare VXUS and XOP 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.