VB vs XLV
Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF vs State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF
Quick Verdict
VB has a lower expense ratio. XLV delivered stronger 1-year returns. VB offers more diversification with 1,311 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | VB | XLV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.03% | 0.08% | |
| AUM | $79.7B | $43.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.22% | 1.56% | |
| Holdings | 1,311 | 63 | |
| YTD Return | +17.13% | +11.28% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.90% | +27.46% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.26% | +10.51% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.59% | +6.69% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.9% | 14.2% | |
| Max Drawdown | -61.0% | -40.6% | |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | SPDR State Street Global Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jan 26, 2004 | Dec 16, 1998 |
VB vs XLV Performance
Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF (VB) is a ETF from Vanguard (US) and State Street Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLV) is a ETF from SPDR State Street Global Advisors. Over the past year VB returned +21.90% while XLV returned +27.46%. Year to date, VB is up 17.13% versus a gain of 11.28% for XLV.
Over three years, VB compounded at +17.26% per year against +10.51% for XLV; over five years the annualized figures are +7.59% and +6.69% respectively. Across the full 23-year window we track, VB has the edge at +8.81% annualized vs +7.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VB has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.9% compared with 14.2% for XLV. 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 -40.6% for XLV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.66. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
VB charges 0.03% per year while XLV charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $3 vs $8 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, VB currently yields 1.22% against 1.56% for XLV.
Holdings Overlap
VB and XLV share 15 holdings out of 1346 unique holdings combined, representing a 2.1% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, VB or XLV?
VB has an expense ratio of 0.03% while XLV charges 0.08%. VB is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $5 per year of difference.
Which performed better, VB or XLV?
Over the past year VB returned +21.90% vs +27.46% for XLV, so XLV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (23 years), VB annualized +8.81% vs +7.54% for XLV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, VB or XLV?
VB has been the more volatile fund at 18.9% annualized versus 14.2% for XLV. Worst drawdown: VB -61.0% vs XLV -40.6%.
Should I hold both VB and XLV?
VB and XLV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.66, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between VB and XLV?
VB and XLV share 15 common holdings with a 2.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1346 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, VB or XLV?
VB yields 1.22% while XLV yields 1.56%, so XLV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.