REVS vs VOO
Columbia Research Enhanced Value ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, REVS or VOO?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. REVS led over 1Y, VOO over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. REVS is less concentrated, with 33.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.6%.
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 | REVS | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.19% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $350M | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.78% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 310 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +17.44%Best | +11.01% |
| 1Y Return | +23.45%Best | +15.60% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.51% | +20.82%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.41% | +12.60%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.5%Best | 16.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -37.9% | -34.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,948 | $18,101Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 33.2%Best | 37.6% |
| Fund Family | Columbia Threadneedle Investments | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 25, 2019 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 25, 2019 to Sep 16, 2026 (7 years).
REVS 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 covers the 7 years both funds cover.
REVS vs VOO Performance
Columbia Research Enhanced Value ETF (REVS) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year REVS returned +23.45% while VOO returned +15.60%. Year to date, REVS is up 17.44% versus a gain of 11.01% for VOO.
Over three years, REVS compounded at +19.51% per year against +20.82% for VOO; over five years the annualized figures are +12.41% and +12.60% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, VOO has the edge at +15.47% annualized vs +13.30%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VOO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.7% compared with 16.5% for REVS. 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 -37.9% for REVS and -34.3% for VOO. 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
REVS charges 0.19% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $19 vs $3 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, REVS currently yields 1.78% against 1.04% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
86.3% of REVS's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 27.8% of VOO's money is in holdings REVS also owns.
Most of REVS is already inside VOO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
145 positions in common, counted across the 298 positions we hold weights for in REVS and 494 in VOO, against full books of 310 and 509.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 343 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for REVS (71.4% of the fund), and 141 for REVS that do not appear in VOO (11.9%).
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 REVS | Weight in VOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 8.29% | 7.05% | 1.24% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 7.23% | 5.36% | 1.87% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 3.80% | 0.63% | 3.17% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.83% | 1.90% | 0.07% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 2.88% | 0.57% | 2.31% |
| MOAltria Group Inc | 2.23% | 0.18% | 2.05% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 1.59% | 0.71% | 0.88% |
| CCitigroup Inc. | 1.87% | 0.34% | 1.53% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 1.80% | 0.21% | 1.59% |
| SCHWSchwab Strategic T | 1.65% | 0.27% | 1.38% |
86.3% of REVS is already inside VOO.
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, REVS or VOO?
REVS has an expense ratio of 0.19% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, REVS or VOO?
Over the past year REVS returned +23.45% vs +15.60% for VOO, so REVS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), REVS annualized +13.30% vs +15.47% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, REVS or VOO?
VOO has been the more volatile fund at 16.7% annualized versus 16.5% for REVS. Worst drawdown: REVS -37.9% vs VOO -34.3%.
Should I hold both REVS and VOO?
REVS and VOO 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 REVS and VOO?
86.3% of REVS's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 27.8% of VOO's is in holdings REVS also owns. They hold 145 positions in common, counted across the 298 positions we hold weights for in REVS and 494 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, REVS or VOO?
REVS yields 1.78% while VOO yields 1.04%, so REVS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than REVS?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. REVS led over 1Y, VOO over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. REVS is less concentrated, with 33.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.