MFDX vs VXUS
PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor International Equity ETF vs Vanguard Total International Stock ETF
Which is better, MFDX or VXUS?
Nearly the same fund. VXUS costs less.
VXUS has a lower expense ratio. MFDX led over 5Y and the full window, VXUS over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97.
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 | MFDX | VXUS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.39% | 0.05%Best |
| AUM | $457M | $164.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.84% | 2.51% |
| Holdings | 1,300 | 8,844 |
| YTD Return | +7.45% | +11.16%Best |
| 1Y Return | +13.19% | +17.13%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.06% | +20.44%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.34%Best | +9.18% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.8%Best | 15.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -39.1%Best | -39.9% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,356Best | $15,514 |
| Fund Family | PIMCO (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Aug 31, 2017 | Jan 26, 2011 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 6, 2017 to Oct 1, 2026 (9.1 years).
MFDX 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 covers the 9.1 years both funds cover.
MFDX vs VXUS Performance
PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor International Equity ETF (MFDX) is an ETF from PIMCO (US) and Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (VXUS) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year MFDX returned +13.19% while VXUS returned +17.13%. Year to date, MFDX is up 7.45% versus a gain of 11.16% for VXUS.
Over three years, MFDX compounded at +19.06% per year against +20.44% for VXUS; over five years the annualized figures are +10.34% and +9.18% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, MFDX has the edge at +7.54% annualized vs +7.00%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VXUS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.6% compared with 14.8% for MFDX. 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 -39.1% for MFDX and -39.9% for VXUS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MFDX charges 0.39% per year while VXUS charges 0.05%. On a $10,000 position that is $39 vs $5 annually, a gap of $34 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MFDX currently yields 2.84% against 2.51% for VXUS.
Holdings Overlap
At least 77.7% of MFDX's money is in holdings VXUS also owns.
Stated as a floor: for VXUS, our book for it covers 89.3% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
Most of MFDX is already inside VXUS. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 46 days apart, MFDX as of Sep 15, 2026 and VXUS as of Jul 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
1,030 positions in common, counted across the 1,272 positions we hold weights for in MFDX and 8,082 in VXUS, against full books of 1,300 and 8,844.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in MFDX | Weight in VXUS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASML:ASASML HOLDING NV | 1.00% | 1.42% | 0.42% |
| NOVN:SMNovartis Ag Ordinary Shares | 0.86% | 0.65% | 0.21% |
| SAN:MABanco Santander | 0.92% | 0.46% | 0.46% |
| NESN:SMNestle Sa | 0.76% | 0.58% | 0.18% |
| HSBA:LNHsbc Securities Inc | 0.43% | 0.82% | 0.39% |
| 8035:JPTokyo Electron Ltd. Com Stk | 0.75% | 0.33% | 0.42% |
| RIO:LNRio Tinto Plc Ordinary Shares | 0.81% | 0.23% | 0.58% |
| 6857:JPAdvantest Corp | 0.70% | 0.32% | 0.38% |
| ABBN:SMABB Ltd. - Ordinary Shares | 0.67% | 0.34% | 0.33% |
| IBE:MAIberdrola Sa | 0.63% | 0.37% | 0.26% |
77.7% of MFDX is already inside VXUS.
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, MFDX or VXUS?
MFDX has an expense ratio of 0.39% while VXUS charges 0.05%. VXUS is the cheaper option, by $34 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, MFDX or VXUS?
Over the past year MFDX returned +13.19% vs +17.13% for VXUS, so VXUS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), MFDX annualized +7.54% vs +7.00% for VXUS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, MFDX or VXUS?
VXUS has been the more volatile fund at 15.6% annualized versus 14.8% for MFDX. Worst drawdown: MFDX -39.1% vs VXUS -39.9%.
Should I hold both MFDX and VXUS?
MFDX and VXUS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 MFDX and VXUS?
At least 77.7% of MFDX's money is in holdings VXUS also owns. Our book for VXUS is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 1,030 positions in common, counted across the 1,272 positions we hold weights for in MFDX and 8,082 in VXUS.
Which pays a higher dividend, MFDX or VXUS?
MFDX yields 2.84% while VXUS yields 2.51%, so MFDX currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VXUS better than MFDX?
VXUS has a lower expense ratio. MFDX led over 5Y and the full window, VXUS over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.