LGH vs VYM
HCM Defender 500 Index ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, LGH or VYM?
Allocation/Balanced against Large Cap Value.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. LGH led over 3Y and the full window, VYM over 1Y and 5Y. VYM is less concentrated, with 26.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.5%.
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 | LGH | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.00% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $589M | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.36% | 2.22% |
| Holdings | 421 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +6.95% | +10.23%Best |
| 1Y Return | +10.82% | +14.28%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.03%Best | +17.50% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.03% | +11.60%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.4% | 15.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -29.6%Best | -35.7% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,127 | $17,311Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 52.5% | 26.1%Best |
| Fund Family | Howard Capital Management | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity |
| Style | Allocation/Balanced | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Oct 9, 2019 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 10, 2019 to Sep 23, 2026 (7 years).
LGH 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 covers the 7 years both funds cover.
LGH vs VYM Performance
HCM Defender 500 Index ETF (LGH) is an ETF from Howard Capital Management and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year LGH returned +10.82% while VYM returned +14.28%. Year to date, LGH is up 6.95% versus a gain of 10.23% for VYM.
Over three years, LGH compounded at +21.03% per year against +17.50% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +10.03% and +11.60% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, LGH has the edge at +15.34% annualized vs +11.46%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LGH has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.4% compared with 15.5% for VYM. 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 -29.6% for LGH and -35.7% for VYM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.74. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LGH charges 1.00% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $100 vs $4 annually, a gap of $96 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LGH currently yields 0.36% against 2.22% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
26.1% of LGH's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 87.6% of VYM's money is in holdings LGH also owns.
Most of VYM is already inside LGH. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
205 positions in common, counted across the 416 positions we hold weights for in LGH and 557 in VYM, against full books of 421 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 324 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for LGH (9.7% of the fund), and 208 for LGH that do not appear in VYM (73.7%).
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 LGH | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.33% | 7.35% | 5.02% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.31% | 3.82% | 2.51% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 0.97% | 2.63% | 1.66% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.90% | 2.51% | 1.61% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.52% | 1.86% | 1.34% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.56% | 1.80% | 1.24% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 0.48% | 1.66% | 1.18% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.49% | 1.48% | 0.99% |
| CATCaterpillar, Inc. | 0.45% | 1.50% | 1.05% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Incorporated | 0.42% | 1.52% | 1.10% |
87.6% of VYM is already inside LGH.
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, LGH or VYM?
LGH has an expense ratio of 1.00% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $96 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LGH or VYM?
Over the past year LGH returned +10.82% vs +14.28% for VYM, so VYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), LGH annualized +15.34% vs +11.46% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LGH or VYM?
LGH has been the more volatile fund at 18.4% annualized versus 15.5% for VYM. Worst drawdown: LGH -29.6% vs VYM -35.7%.
Should I hold both LGH and VYM?
LGH and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.74, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between LGH and VYM?
87.6% of VYM's money is in holdings LGH also owns. 87.6% of VYM's is in holdings LGH also owns. They hold 205 positions in common, counted across the 416 positions we hold weights for in LGH and 557 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, LGH or VYM?
LGH yields 0.36% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than LGH?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. LGH led over 3Y and the full window, VYM over 1Y and 5Y. VYM is less concentrated, with 26.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.