NMBL vs VOO
NovaTide Flexible Allocation ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, NMBL or VOO?
Allocation/Balanced against Large Cap Blend.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.8%.
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 | NMBL | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.99% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $24M | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.86% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 43 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +6.27% | +12.37%Best |
| 1Y Return | +6.52% | +16.61%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +21.37% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.49% |
| Top 10 Weight | 53.8% | 37.6%Best |
| Fund Family | NovaTide | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Allocation/Balanced | Equity |
| Style | Allocation/Balanced | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 30, 2025 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
NMBL vs VOO 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.
NMBL vs VOO Performance
NovaTide Flexible Allocation ETF (NMBL) is an ETF from NovaTide and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year NMBL returned +6.52% while VOO returned +16.61%. Year to date, NMBL is up 6.27% versus a gain of 12.37% for VOO.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NMBL charges 1.99% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $199 vs $3 annually, a gap of $196 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NMBL currently yields 0.86% against 1.04% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
1.6% of NMBL's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 17.0% of VOO's money is in holdings NMBL also owns.
VOO and NMBL share little of their money.
3 positions in common, counted across the 40 positions we hold weights for in NMBL and 494 in VOO, against full books of 43 and 509.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 484 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for NMBL (82.1% of the fund), and 36 for NMBL that do not appear in VOO (95.8%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of NMBL and VOO 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, NMBL or VOO?
NMBL has an expense ratio of 1.99% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $196 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, NMBL or VOO?
Over the past year NMBL returned +6.52% vs +16.61% for VOO, so VOO leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between NMBL and VOO?
17.0% of VOO's money is in holdings NMBL also owns. 17.0% of VOO's is in holdings NMBL also owns. They hold 3 positions in common, counted across the 40 positions we hold weights for in NMBL and 494 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, NMBL or VOO?
NMBL yields 0.86% while VOO yields 1.04%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than NMBL?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. VOO led over 1Y. VOO is less concentrated, with 37.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.