NULV vs VYM
Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Value ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, NULV or VYM?
Nearly the same fund. VYM costs less.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. NULV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window, VYM over 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. VYM is less concentrated, with 26.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 30.4%.
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 | NULV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.26% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $2.5B | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.37% | 2.22% |
| Holdings | 102 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +17.86%Best | +10.24% |
| 1Y Return | +25.57%Best | +14.89% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.09%Best | +18.00% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.56% | +11.42%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4% | 14.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -37.0% | -35.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,786 | $17,172Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 30.4% | 26.1%Best |
| Fund Family | Nuveen | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 13, 2016 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 14, 2016 to Sep 25, 2026 (9.8 years).
NULV 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 9.8 years both funds cover.
NULV vs VYM Performance
Nuveen ESG Large-Cap Value ETF (NULV) is an ETF from Nuveen and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year NULV returned +25.57% while VYM returned +14.89%. Year to date, NULV is up 17.86% versus a gain of 10.24% for VYM.
Over three years, NULV compounded at +19.09% per year against +18.00% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +9.56% and +11.42% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, NULV has the edge at +10.37% annualized vs +9.48%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NULV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 14.4% 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 -37.0% for NULV 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 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NULV charges 0.26% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $26 vs $4 annually, a gap of $22 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NULV currently yields 1.37% against 2.22% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
60.1% of NULV's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 30.0% of VYM's money is in holdings NULV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
73 positions in common, counted across the 127 positions we hold weights for in NULV and 557 in VYM, against full books of 102 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 455 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for NULV (67.1% of the fund), and 51 for NULV that do not appear in VYM (38.5%).
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 NULV | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 2.51% | 1.86% | 0.65% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 1.93% | 1.80% | 0.13% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 2.23% | 1.38% | 0.85% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 1.73% | 1.37% | 0.36% |
| MSMorgan Stanley | 1.97% | 0.96% | 1.01% |
| CCitigroup Inc. | 1.94% | 0.89% | 1.05% |
| GSGoldman Sachs Group Inc/The | 1.63% | 1.13% | 0.50% |
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 1.28% | 1.31% | 0.03% |
| VZVerizon Communic | 1.55% | 0.80% | 0.75% |
| PFEPfizer Inc | 1.68% | 0.58% | 1.10% |
60.1% of NULV 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.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, NULV or VYM?
NULV has an expense ratio of 0.26% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $22 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, NULV or VYM?
Over the past year NULV returned +25.57% vs +14.89% for VYM, so NULV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), NULV annualized +10.37% vs +9.48% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, NULV or VYM?
NULV has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 14.4% for VYM. Worst drawdown: NULV -37.0% vs VYM -35.7%.
Should I hold both NULV and VYM?
NULV and VYM 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 NULV and VYM?
60.1% of NULV's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 30.0% of VYM's is in holdings NULV also owns. They hold 73 positions in common, counted across the 127 positions we hold weights for in NULV and 557 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, NULV or VYM?
NULV yields 1.37% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than NULV?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. NULV led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window, VYM over 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. VYM is less concentrated, with 26.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 30.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.