OMFL vs VYM
Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, OMFL or VYM?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. OMFL led over the full window, VYM over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. VYM is less concentrated, with 26.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.3%.
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 | OMFL | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.29% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $4.8B | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.81% | 2.22% |
| Holdings | 635 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +13.17%Best | +13.08% |
| 1Y Return | +16.56% | +17.46%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.96% | +17.73%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.38% | +12.22%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.3% | 15.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.2%Best | -35.7% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,656 | $17,797Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.3% | 26.1%Best |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Nov 8, 2017 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 10, 2017 to Sep 14, 2026 (8.8 years).
OMFL 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 8.8 years both funds cover.
OMFL vs VYM Performance
Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFL) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year OMFL returned +16.56% while VYM returned +17.46%. Year to date, OMFL is up 13.17% versus a gain of 13.08% for VYM.
Over three years, OMFL compounded at +14.96% per year against +17.73% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +9.38% and +12.22% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, OMFL has the edge at +13.75% annualized vs +9.87%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
OMFL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.3% compared with 15.0% 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 -33.2% for OMFL 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 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
OMFL charges 0.29% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $29 vs $4 annually, a gap of $25 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, OMFL currently yields 0.81% against 2.22% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
27.4% of OMFL's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 81.3% of VYM's money is in holdings OMFL also owns.
Most of VYM is already inside OMFL. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
235 positions in common, counted across the 571 positions we hold weights for in OMFL and 557 in VYM, against full books of 635 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 295 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for OMFL (16.1% of the fund), and 314 for OMFL that do not appear in VYM (70.5%).
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 OMFL | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.85% | 7.35% | 6.50% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 1.48% | 2.51% | 1.03% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 1.24% | 2.63% | 1.39% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 0.03% | 3.82% | 3.79% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 1.58% | 1.86% | 0.28% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.73% | 1.80% | 1.07% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 0.92% | 1.37% | 0.45% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Incorporated | 0.49% | 1.52% | 1.03% |
| CATCaterpillar, Inc. | 0.34% | 1.50% | 1.16% |
| PMPhilip Morris International Inc. | 0.61% | 1.21% | 0.60% |
81.3% of VYM is already inside OMFL.
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, OMFL or VYM?
OMFL has an expense ratio of 0.29% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $25 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, OMFL or VYM?
Over the past year OMFL returned +16.56% vs +17.46% for VYM, so VYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), OMFL annualized +13.75% vs +9.87% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, OMFL or VYM?
OMFL has been the more volatile fund at 17.3% annualized versus 15.0% for VYM. Worst drawdown: OMFL -33.2% vs VYM -35.7%.
Should I hold both OMFL and VYM?
OMFL and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, 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 OMFL and VYM?
81.3% of VYM's money is in holdings OMFL also owns. 81.3% of VYM's is in holdings OMFL also owns. They hold 235 positions in common, counted across the 571 positions we hold weights for in OMFL and 557 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, OMFL or VYM?
OMFL yields 0.81% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than OMFL?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. OMFL led over the full window, VYM over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. VYM is less concentrated, with 26.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.