GVLE vs VXUS
Goldman Sachs Value Opportunities ETF vs Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
Which is better, GVLE or VXUS?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
VXUS has a lower expense ratio. GVLE led over 1Y.
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 | GVLE | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.45% | 0.05%Best |
| AUM | $40M | $163.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.97% | 2.38% |
| Holdings | 64 | 9,293 |
| YTD Return | +20.93%Best | +9.82% |
| 1Y Return | +26.96%Best | +13.33% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +19.29% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +8.17% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.7%Best | 15.2% |
| Fund Family | Goldman Sachs Asset Management | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 31, 2015 | Jan 26, 2011 |
Not shown on this pair: Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window, Top 10 Weight.
GVLE vs VXUS 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.
GVLE vs VXUS Performance
Goldman Sachs Value Opportunities ETF (GVLE) is an ETF from Goldman Sachs Asset Management and Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (VXUS) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year GVLE returned +26.96% while VXUS returned +13.33%. Year to date, GVLE is up 20.93% versus a gain of 9.82% for VXUS.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VXUS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.2% compared with 12.7% for GVLE. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GVLE charges 0.45% per year while VXUS charges 0.05%. On a $10,000 position that is $45 vs $5 annually, a gap of $40 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GVLE currently yields 0.97% against 2.38% for VXUS.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 31 holdings in GVLE and 8,463 in VXUS, totalling 98.5% and 89.2% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 31 positions we hold weights for in GVLE and 8,463 in VXUS, against full books of 64 and 9,293.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of GVLE and VXUS you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GVLE or VXUS?
GVLE has an expense ratio of 0.45% while VXUS charges 0.05%. VXUS is the cheaper option, by $40 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, GVLE or VXUS?
Over the past year GVLE returned +26.96% vs +13.33% for VXUS, so GVLE leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, GVLE or VXUS?
VXUS has been the more volatile fund at 15.2% annualized versus 12.7% for GVLE.
Should I hold both GVLE and VXUS?
GVLE and VXUS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, GVLE or VXUS?
GVLE yields 0.97% while VXUS yields 2.38%, so VXUS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VXUS better than GVLE?
VXUS has a lower expense ratio. GVLE led over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.