SRHQ vs VYM
SRH US Quality GARP ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, SRHQ or VYM?
Large Cap Growth against Large Cap Value.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. SRHQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. SRHQ is less concentrated, with 18.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 25.9%.
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 | SRHQ | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $219M | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.69% | 2.22% |
| Holdings | 82 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +21.69%Best | +13.15% |
| 1Y Return | +25.63%Best | +17.82% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.94%Best | +17.99% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.16% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.5% | 11.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -18.5% | -14.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.9 years | $19,278Best | $17,924 |
| Top 10 Weight | 18.9%Best | 25.9% |
| Fund Family | SRH Funds | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Oct 4, 2022 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 5, 2022 to Sep 10, 2026 (3.9 years).
SRHQ 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 3.9 years both funds cover.
SRHQ vs VYM Performance
SRH US Quality GARP ETF (SRHQ) is an ETF from SRH Funds and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year SRHQ returned +25.63% while VYM returned +17.82%. Year to date, SRHQ is up 21.69% versus a gain of 13.15% for VYM.
Over three years, SRHQ compounded at +18.94% per year against +17.99% for VYM. Across the full 4-year window we track, SRHQ has the edge at +18.33% annualized vs +16.14%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SRHQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.5% compared with 11.5% 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 -18.5% for SRHQ and -14.5% 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
SRHQ charges 0.35% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $4 annually, a gap of $31 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, SRHQ currently yields 0.69% against 2.22% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
35.9% of SRHQ's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 5.5% of VYM's money is in holdings SRHQ also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
The two holdings books were reported 64 days apart, SRHQ as of Sep 2, 2026 and VYM as of Jun 30, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
29 positions in common, counted across the 81 positions we hold weights for in SRHQ and 603 in VYM, against full books of 82 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 539 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for SRHQ (92.0% of the fund), and 52 for SRHQ that do not appear in VYM (64.0%).
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 SRHQ | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Inc. | 1.57% | 1.56% | 0.01% |
| AMGNAmgen Inc. | 1.33% | 0.75% | 0.58% |
| NSPInsperity Inc | 1.98% | 0.01% | 1.97% |
| ADPAutomatic Data Processing, Inc. | 1.47% | 0.37% | 1.10% |
| ELVElevance Health Inc | 1.47% | 0.34% | 1.13% |
| NLOKGen Digital Inc | 1.73% | 0.06% | 1.67% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 1.18% | 0.49% | 0.69% |
| FFord Motor Co. | 1.30% | 0.23% | 1.07% |
| FDSFactset Research Systems Inc. | 1.49% | 0.03% | 1.46% |
| GPNGlobal Payments Inc. | 1.46% | 0.05% | 1.41% |
35.9% of SRHQ 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, SRHQ or VYM?
SRHQ has an expense ratio of 0.35% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $31 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, SRHQ or VYM?
Over the past year SRHQ returned +25.63% vs +17.82% for VYM, so SRHQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), SRHQ annualized +18.33% vs +16.14% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, SRHQ or VYM?
SRHQ has been the more volatile fund at 13.5% annualized versus 11.5% for VYM. Worst drawdown: SRHQ -18.5% vs VYM -14.5%.
Should I hold both SRHQ and VYM?
SRHQ 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 SRHQ and VYM?
35.9% of SRHQ's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 5.5% of VYM's is in holdings SRHQ also owns. They hold 29 positions in common, counted across the 81 positions we hold weights for in SRHQ and 603 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, SRHQ or VYM?
SRHQ yields 0.69% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than SRHQ?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. SRHQ led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. SRHQ is less concentrated, with 18.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 25.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.