VB vs VOT
Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF
Which is better, VB or VOT?
Small Cap Blend against Mid Cap Growth.
VB has a lower expense ratio. VB led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, VOT over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. VB is less concentrated, with 4.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 20.9%.
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 | VB | VOT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03%Best | 0.05% |
| AUM | $79.7B | $19.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.21% | 0.60% |
| Holdings | 1,319 | 129 |
| YTD Return | +11.98%Best | +4.00% |
| 1Y Return | +15.45%Best | +1.02% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.91%Best | +14.15% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.03%Best | +4.15% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.4% | 18.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -61.0% | -60.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,045Best | $12,255 |
| Top 10 Weight | 4.3%Best | 20.9% |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Mid Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jan 26, 2004 | Aug 17, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 24, 2006 to Sep 17, 2026 (20.1 years).
VB vs VOT 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 20.1 years both funds cover.
VB vs VOT Performance
Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF (VB) is an ETF from Vanguard (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (VOT) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year VB returned +15.45% while VOT returned +1.02%. Year to date, VB is up 11.98% versus a gain of 4.00% for VOT.
Over three years, VB compounded at +15.91% per year against +14.15% for VOT; over five years the annualized figures are +7.03% and +4.15% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, VOT has the edge at +9.30% annualized vs +8.48%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.4% compared with 18.5% for VOT. 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 -61.0% for VB and -60.3% for VOT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
VB charges 0.03% per year while VOT charges 0.05%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $5 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, VB currently yields 1.21% against 0.60% for VOT.
Holdings Overlap
2.4% of VB's money is in holdings VOT also owns. 3.5% of VOT's money is in holdings VB also owns.
VOT and VB share little of their money.
17 positions in common, counted across the 1,302 positions we hold weights for in VB and 123 in VOT, against full books of 1,319 and 129.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 104 positions for VOT that do not appear in our book for VB (95.2% of the fund), and 1,230 for VB that do not appear in VOT (92.0%).
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 VB | Weight in VOT | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALABAstera Labs Inc - Common | 0.45% | 0.55% | 0.10% |
| FLEX:SIFlex Ltd | 0.36% | 0.47% | 0.11% |
| TPLTexas Pacific Land Trust | 0.15% | 0.27% | 0.12% |
| FSLRFirst Solar, Inc | 0.14% | 0.25% | 0.11% |
| EQTEQT Corp. | 0.20% | 0.19% | 0.01% |
| BURLBurlington Stores Inc | 0.12% | 0.26% | 0.14% |
| INSMInsmed Inc | 0.14% | 0.24% | 0.10% |
| ASTSAst Spacemobile Inc Class A | 0.15% | 0.19% | 0.04% |
| HUBBHubbell Inc | 0.17% | 0.14% | 0.03% |
| BRBroadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. | 0.09% | 0.20% | 0.11% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of VB and VOT you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, VB or VOT?
VB has an expense ratio of 0.03% while VOT charges 0.05%. VB is the cheaper option, by $2 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, VB or VOT?
Over the past year VB returned +15.45% vs +1.02% for VOT, so VB leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), VB annualized +8.48% vs +9.30% for VOT. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, VB or VOT?
VB has been the more volatile fund at 19.4% annualized versus 18.5% for VOT. Worst drawdown: VB -61.0% vs VOT -60.3%.
Should I hold both VB and VOT?
VB and VOT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 VB and VOT?
3.5% of VOT's money is in holdings VB also owns. 3.5% of VOT's is in holdings VB also owns. They hold 17 positions in common, counted across the 1,302 positions we hold weights for in VB and 123 in VOT.
Which pays a higher dividend, VB or VOT?
VB yields 1.21% while VOT yields 0.60%, so VB currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOT better than VB?
VB has a lower expense ratio. VB led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y, VOT over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. VB is less concentrated, with 4.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 20.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.