HWGV vs VYM

HWGV vs VYM

Which is better, HWGV or VYM?

VYM costs less.

VYM has a lower expense ratio. VYM is less concentrated, with 26.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 31.2%.

Lower Fees: VYMLess Concentrated: VYM

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

MetricHWGVVYM
Expense Ratio0.70%0.04%Best
AUM$501,019.16$81.6B
Dividend Yield0.00%2.22%
Holdings62613
YTD Return+0.49%+12.87%Best
1Y Return-+17.25%
3Y Return (annualized)-+17.66%
5Y Return (annualized)-+11.98%
Top 10 Weight31.2%26.1%Best
Fund FamilyHotchkis & Wiley FundsVanguard (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap ValueLarge Cap Value
InceptionAug 27, 2026Nov 10, 2006

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

HWGV vs VYM 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.

HWGV vs VYM Performance

Hotchkis & Wiley Global Value Fund ETF (HWGV) is an ETF from Hotchkis & Wiley Funds and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Year to date, HWGV is up 0.49% versus a gain of 12.87% for VYM.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

HWGV charges 0.70% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $70 vs $4 annually, a gap of $66 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, HWGV currently yields 0.00% against 2.22% for VYM.

Holdings Overlap

HWGV already in VYM38.3%
VYM already in HWGV7.5%

38.3% of HWGV's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 7.5% of VYM's money is in holdings HWGV also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

26 positions in common, counted across the 62 positions we hold weights for in HWGV and 557 in VYM, against full books of 62 and 613.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 502 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for HWGV (89.5% of the fund), and 12 for HWGV that do not appear in VYM (25.4%).

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

StockWeight in HWGVWeight in VYMDifference
AIGAmerican International Gr3.26%0.17%3.09%
WFCWells Fargo & Co.2.17%1.07%1.10%
ELVElevance Health Inc2.89%0.32%2.57%
CICigna Corp.2.53%0.30%2.23%
MDTMedtronic Plc Ordinary Shares2.26%0.44%1.82%
USBUS Bancorp2.21%0.40%1.81%
CMCSAComcast Corp-class A Cmcsa2.21%0.34%1.87%
MDLZMondelez International Inc Com A Npv1.90%0.32%1.58%
APAApa Corp1.99%0.05%1.94%
CCitigroup Inc.0.97%0.89%0.08%

38.3% of HWGV is already inside VYM.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

HWGVVYM

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, HWGV or VYM?

HWGV has an expense ratio of 0.70% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $66 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between HWGV and VYM?

38.3% of HWGV's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 7.5% of VYM's is in holdings HWGV also owns. They hold 26 positions in common, counted across the 62 positions we hold weights for in HWGV and 557 in VYM.

Which pays a higher dividend, HWGV or VYM?

HWGV yields 0.00% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VYM better than HWGV?

VYM has a lower expense ratio. VYM is less concentrated, with 26.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 31.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.