BASV vs GVLE
Brown Advisory Sustainable Value ETF vs Goldman Sachs Value Opportunities ETF
Which is better, BASV or GVLE?
GVLE has been ahead.
GVLE has a lower expense ratio. GVLE led over 1Y. BASV is less concentrated, with 34.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.5%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BASV | GVLE |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.71% | 0.45%Best |
| AUM | $413M | $40M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.38% | 1.00% |
| Holdings | 42 | 62 |
| YTD Return | +7.52% | +17.21%Best |
| 1Y Return | +11.61% | +23.05%Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 34.7%Best | 49.5% |
| Fund Family | Brown Advisory | Goldman Sachs Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Jun 13, 2025 | Jul 31, 2015 |
Not shown on this pair: 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
BASV vs GVLE growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
BASV vs GVLE Performance
Brown Advisory Sustainable Value ETF (BASV) is an ETF from Brown Advisory and Goldman Sachs Value Opportunities ETF (GVLE) is an ETF from Goldman Sachs Asset Management. Over the past year BASV returned +11.61% while GVLE returned +23.05%. Year to date, BASV is up 7.52% versus a gain of 17.21% for GVLE.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BASV charges 0.71% per year while GVLE charges 0.45%. On a $10,000 position that is $71 vs $45 annually, a gap of $26 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BASV currently yields 0.38% against 1.00% for GVLE.
Holdings Overlap
17.2% of BASV's money is in holdings GVLE also owns. 24.6% of GVLE's money is in holdings BASV also owns.
GVLE and BASV share little of their money.
5 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in BASV and 32 in GVLE, against full books of 42 and 62.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 26 positions for GVLE that do not appear in our book for BASV (71.0% of the fund), and 31 for BASV that do not appear in GVLE (65.8%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
24.6% of GVLE is already inside BASV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BASV or GVLE?
BASV has an expense ratio of 0.71% while GVLE charges 0.45%. GVLE is the cheaper option, by $26 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, BASV or GVLE?
Over the past year BASV returned +11.61% vs +23.05% for GVLE, so GVLE leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between BASV and GVLE?
24.6% of GVLE's money is in holdings BASV also owns. 24.6% of GVLE's is in holdings BASV also owns. They hold 5 positions in common, counted across the 41 positions we hold weights for in BASV and 32 in GVLE.
Which pays a higher dividend, BASV or GVLE?
BASV yields 0.38% while GVLE yields 1.00%, so GVLE currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is GVLE better than BASV?
GVLE has a lower expense ratio. GVLE led over 1Y. BASV is less concentrated, with 34.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.