NZAC vs VYM
State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, NZAC or VYM?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. NZAC led over 3Y and the full window, VYM over 1Y and 5Y. VYM is less concentrated, with 25.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 27.5%.
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 | NZAC | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.12% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $196M | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.01% | 2.22% |
| Holdings | 673 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +8.26% | +13.15%Best |
| 1Y Return | +13.97% | +17.82%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.08%Best | +17.99% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.19% | +12.16%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.8% | 13.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.7%Best | -35.7% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,521 | $17,750Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 27.5% | 25.9%Best |
| Fund Family | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Nov 25, 2014 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 26, 2014 to Sep 10, 2026 (11.8 years).
NZAC 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 11.8 years both funds cover.
NZAC vs VYM Performance
State Street SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) is an ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year NZAC returned +13.97% while VYM returned +17.82%. Year to date, NZAC is up 8.26% versus a gain of 13.15% for VYM.
Over three years, NZAC compounded at +18.08% per year against +17.99% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +9.19% and +12.16% respectively. Across the full 12-year window we track, NZAC has the edge at +8.82% annualized vs +8.79%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
NZAC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.8% compared with 13.8% 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 -33.7% for NZAC 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 0.88. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NZAC charges 0.12% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $12 vs $4 annually, a gap of $8 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NZAC currently yields 2.01% against 2.22% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
18.2% of NZAC's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 48.9% of VYM's money is in holdings NZAC also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
89 positions in common, counted across the 626 positions we hold weights for in NZAC and 603 in VYM, against full books of 673 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 480 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for NZAC (48.6% of the fund), and 160 for NZAC that do not appear in VYM (47.0%).
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 NZAC | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.98% | 7.29% | 5.31% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase & Co. | 1.27% | 3.38% | 2.11% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 0.82% | 2.54% | 1.72% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.68% | 1.93% | 1.25% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.40% | 1.85% | 1.45% |
| BACBank Of America Corp. | 0.48% | 1.56% | 1.08% |
| MRKMerck & Co. Inc. | 0.51% | 1.32% | 0.81% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Inc. | 0.25% | 1.56% | 1.31% |
| HDHome Depot Inc/The | 0.33% | 1.46% | 1.13% |
| IBMInternational Business Machines Corp. | 0.54% | 1.10% | 0.56% |
48.9% of VYM is already inside NZAC.
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, NZAC or VYM?
NZAC has an expense ratio of 0.12% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $8 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, NZAC or VYM?
Over the past year NZAC returned +13.97% vs +17.82% for VYM, so VYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (12 years), NZAC annualized +8.82% vs +8.79% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, NZAC or VYM?
NZAC has been the more volatile fund at 14.8% annualized versus 13.8% for VYM. Worst drawdown: NZAC -33.7% vs VYM -35.7%.
Should I hold both NZAC and VYM?
NZAC and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.88, 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 NZAC and VYM?
48.9% of VYM's money is in holdings NZAC also owns. 48.9% of VYM's is in holdings NZAC also owns. They hold 89 positions in common, counted across the 626 positions we hold weights for in NZAC and 603 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, NZAC or VYM?
NZAC yields 2.01% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than NZAC?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. NZAC led over 3Y and the full window, VYM over 1Y and 5Y. VYM is less concentrated, with 25.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 27.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.