IMCB vs VO
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF
Which is better, IMCB or VO?
Nearly the same fund. VO costs less.
VO has a lower expense ratio. IMCB led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IMCB is less concentrated, with 8.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 9.3%.
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 | IMCB | VO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.04% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $1.7B | $103.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.27% | 1.40% |
| Holdings | 397 | 287 |
| YTD Return | +16.43%Best | +10.62% |
| 1Y Return | +18.41%Best | +11.35% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.80%Best | +17.10% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.44%Best | +7.00% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.2% | 17.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -59.6%Best | -60.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,995Best | $14,026 |
| Top 10 Weight | 8.0%Best | 9.3% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Mid Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 28, 2004 | Jan 26, 2004 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 2, 2004 to Oct 14, 2026 (22.3 years).
IMCB vs VO 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 covers the 22.3 years both funds cover.
IMCB vs VO Performance
iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (VO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year IMCB returned +18.41% while VO returned +11.35%. Year to date, IMCB is up 16.43% versus a gain of 10.62% for VO.
Over three years, IMCB compounded at +18.80% per year against +17.10% for VO; over five years the annualized figures are +8.44% and +7.00% respectively. Across the full 22-year window we track, IMCB has the edge at +9.14% annualized vs +9.09%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IMCB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 17.0% for VO. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -59.6% for IMCB and -60.3% for VO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IMCB charges 0.04% per year while VO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $4 vs $3 annually, a gap of $1 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IMCB currently yields 1.27% against 1.40% for VO.
Holdings Overlap
69.6% of IMCB's money is in holdings VO also owns. 90.3% of VO's money is in holdings IMCB also owns.
Most of VO is already inside IMCB. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
258 positions in common, counted across the 396 positions we hold weights for in IMCB and 277 in VO, against full books of 397 and 287.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 16 positions for VO that do not appear in our book for IMCB (7.5% of the fund), and 131 for IMCB that do not appear in VO (29.3%).
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.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in IMCB | Weight in VO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 0.83% | 1.04% | 0.21% |
| VLOValero Energy | 0.83% | 1.02% | 0.19% |
| NETCloudflare Inc (180 Day Lockup) | 0.79% | 0.93% | 0.14% |
| PSXPhillips 66 | 0.74% | 0.94% | 0.20% |
| HOODRobinhood Markets Inc - A | 0.61% | 0.79% | 0.18% |
| DDOGDatadog Inc | 0.64% | 0.75% | 0.11% |
| SLBSchlumberger Nv. | 0.51% | 0.86% | 0.35% |
| SNOWSnowflake Inc | 0.81% | 0.52% | 0.29% |
| LITELumentum Holdings Inc | 0.65% | 0.68% | 0.03% |
| DASHDoordash Inc - A | 0.48% | 0.82% | 0.34% |
90.3% of VO is already inside IMCB.
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, IMCB or VO?
IMCB has an expense ratio of 0.04% while VO charges 0.03%. VO is the cheaper option, by $1 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IMCB or VO?
Over the past year IMCB returned +18.41% vs +11.35% for VO, so IMCB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (22 years), IMCB annualized +9.14% vs +9.09% for VO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IMCB or VO?
IMCB has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 17.0% for VO. Worst drawdown: IMCB -59.6% vs VO -60.3%.
Should I hold both IMCB and VO?
IMCB and VO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between IMCB and VO?
90.3% of VO's money is in holdings IMCB also owns. 90.3% of VO's is in holdings IMCB also owns. They hold 258 positions in common, counted across the 396 positions we hold weights for in IMCB and 277 in VO.
Which pays a higher dividend, IMCB or VO?
IMCB yields 1.27% while VO yields 1.40%, so VO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VO better than IMCB?
VO has a lower expense ratio. IMCB led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. IMCB is less concentrated, with 8.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 9.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.