VFMF vs VFMV
Vanguard US Multifactor ETF vs Vanguard US Minimum Volatility ETF
Which is better, VFMF or VFMV?
VFMF has been ahead.
VFMV has a lower expense ratio. VFMF led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. VFMF is less concentrated, with 9.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 15.7%.
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 | VFMF | VFMV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.18% | 0.13%Best |
| AUM | $1.1B | $460M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.44% | 1.63% |
| Holdings | 655 | 204 |
| YTD Return | +20.44%Best | +11.27% |
| 1Y Return | +27.58%Best | +11.99% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.35%Best | +15.36% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.91%Best | +9.45% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.5% | 13.2%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -41.3% | -33.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,178Best | $15,706 |
| Top 10 Weight | 9.2%Best | 15.7% |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Mid Cap Blend |
| Inception | Feb 13, 2018 | Feb 13, 2018 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 15, 2018 to Oct 14, 2026 (8.7 years).
VFMF vs VFMV 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 8.7 years both funds cover.
VFMF vs VFMV Performance
Vanguard US Multifactor ETF (VFMF) is an ETF from Vanguard (US) and Vanguard US Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year VFMF returned +27.58% while VFMV returned +11.99%. Year to date, VFMF is up 20.44% versus a gain of 11.27% for VFMV.
Over three years, VFMF compounded at +22.35% per year against +15.36% for VFMV; over five years the annualized figures are +13.91% and +9.45% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, VFMF has the edge at +12.22% annualized vs +9.64%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VFMF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.5% compared with 13.2% for VFMV. 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 -41.3% for VFMF and -33.6% for VFMV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
VFMF charges 0.18% per year while VFMV charges 0.13%. On a $10,000 position that is $18 vs $13 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, VFMF currently yields 1.44% against 1.63% for VFMV.
Holdings Overlap
19.4% of VFMF's money is in holdings VFMV also owns. 38.7% of VFMV's money is in holdings VFMF also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
72 positions in common, counted across the 654 positions we hold weights for in VFMF and 218 in VFMV, against full books of 655 and 204.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 142 positions for VFMV that do not appear in our book for VFMF (59.8% of the fund), and 554 for VFMF that do not appear in VFMV (77.5%).
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 VFMF | Weight in VFMV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMExxonmobil Corp. | 0.72% | 1.58% | 0.86% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.79% | 1.50% | 0.71% |
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 0.69% | 1.26% | 0.57% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 0.35% | 1.54% | 1.19% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.46% | 1.39% | 0.93% |
| TXNTexas Instrument Inc | 0.14% | 1.69% | 1.55% |
| ROSTRoss Stores, Inc. | 0.60% | 1.22% | 0.62% |
| EOGEog Resources Inc | 0.91% | 0.89% | 0.02% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.12% | 1.56% | 1.44% |
| MOAltria Group Inc | 0.87% | 0.77% | 0.10% |
38.7% of VFMV is already inside VFMF.
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, VFMF or VFMV?
VFMF has an expense ratio of 0.18% while VFMV charges 0.13%. VFMV is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, VFMF or VFMV?
Over the past year VFMF returned +27.58% vs +11.99% for VFMV, so VFMF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), VFMF annualized +12.22% vs +9.64% for VFMV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, VFMF or VFMV?
VFMF has been the more volatile fund at 18.5% annualized versus 13.2% for VFMV. Worst drawdown: VFMF -41.3% vs VFMV -33.6%.
Should I hold both VFMF and VFMV?
VFMF and VFMV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 VFMF and VFMV?
38.7% of VFMV's money is in holdings VFMF also owns. 38.7% of VFMV's is in holdings VFMF also owns. They hold 72 positions in common, counted across the 654 positions we hold weights for in VFMF and 218 in VFMV.
Which pays a higher dividend, VFMF or VFMV?
VFMF yields 1.44% while VFMV yields 1.63%, so VFMV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VFMV better than VFMF?
VFMV has a lower expense ratio. VFMF led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. VFMF is less concentrated, with 9.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 15.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.