PKW vs VYM
Invesco BuyBack Achievers ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, PKW or VYM?
Each has led over a different period.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. PKW led over 3Y and the full window, VYM over 1Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. VYM is less concentrated, with 25.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.2%.
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 | PKW | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.62% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $1.8B | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.74% | 2.22% |
| Holdings | 227 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +11.21% | +13.75%Best |
| 1Y Return | +15.20% | +19.42%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.72%Best | +18.22% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.24% | +12.17%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.1% | 14.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -55.3%Best | -58.8% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,034 | $17,758Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 39.2% | 25.9%Best |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 20, 2006 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 20, 2006 to Sep 9, 2026 (19.7 years).
PKW 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 19.7 years both funds cover.
PKW vs VYM Performance
Invesco BuyBack Achievers ETF (PKW) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year PKW returned +15.20% while VYM returned +19.42%. Year to date, PKW is up 11.21% versus a gain of 13.75% for VYM.
Over three years, PKW compounded at +18.72% per year against +18.22% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +11.24% and +12.17% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, PKW has the edge at +9.83% annualized vs +6.83%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PKW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.1% compared with 14.6% 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 -55.3% for PKW and -58.8% 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 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
PKW charges 0.62% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $62 vs $4 annually, a gap of $58 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PKW currently yields 0.74% against 2.22% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
43.7% of PKW's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 7.2% of VYM's money is in holdings PKW also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
72 positions in common, counted across the 279 positions we hold weights for in PKW and 603 in VYM, against full books of 227 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 499 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for PKW (90.3% of the fund), and 194 for PKW that do not appear in VYM (53.9%).
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 PKW | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BACBank Of America Corp. | 5.05% | 1.56% | 3.49% |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co. | 4.90% | 1.05% | 3.85% |
| CCitigroup Inc. | 4.50% | 0.94% | 3.56% |
| JCIJohnson Controls International Plc | 3.19% | 0.37% | 2.82% |
| VLOValero Energy Corp. | 2.78% | 0.32% | 2.46% |
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp. | 2.77% | 0.31% | 2.46% |
| TRVTravelers Cos., Inc. | 2.55% | 0.29% | 2.26% |
| AFLAflac Corp. | 1.96% | 0.22% | 1.74% |
| AMPAmeriprise Financial Inc. | 1.49% | 0.17% | 1.32% |
| AIGAmerican International Gr | 1.28% | 0.16% | 1.12% |
43.7% of PKW 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, PKW or VYM?
PKW has an expense ratio of 0.62% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $58 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, PKW or VYM?
Over the past year PKW returned +15.20% vs +19.42% for VYM, so VYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), PKW annualized +9.83% vs +6.83% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, PKW or VYM?
PKW has been the more volatile fund at 17.1% annualized versus 14.6% for VYM. Worst drawdown: PKW -55.3% vs VYM -58.8%.
Should I hold both PKW and VYM?
PKW and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 PKW and VYM?
43.7% of PKW's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 7.2% of VYM's is in holdings PKW also owns. They hold 72 positions in common, counted across the 279 positions we hold weights for in PKW and 603 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, PKW or VYM?
PKW yields 0.74% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than PKW?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. PKW led over 3Y and the full window, VYM over 1Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. VYM is less concentrated, with 25.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.