VFQY vs VYM
Vanguard US Quality Factor ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, VFQY or VYM?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. VFQY led over the full window, VYM over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. VFQY is less concentrated, with 15.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 26.1%.
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 | VFQY | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.13% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $501M | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.02% | 2.22% |
| Holdings | 452 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +11.86%Best | +11.35% |
| 1Y Return | +13.15% | +15.34%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.80% | +17.22%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.14% | +12.30%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.2% | 15.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -37.4% | -35.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,485 | $17,861Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 15.3%Best | 26.1% |
| Fund Family | Vanguard (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Feb 13, 2018 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 15, 2018 to Sep 18, 2026 (8.6 years).
VFQY 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 8.6 years both funds cover.
VFQY vs VYM Performance
Vanguard US Quality Factor ETF (VFQY) is an ETF from Vanguard (US) and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year VFQY returned +13.15% while VYM returned +15.34%. Year to date, VFQY is up 11.86% versus a gain of 11.35% for VYM.
Over three years, VFQY compounded at +15.80% per year against +17.22% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +9.14% and +12.30% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, VFQY has the edge at +11.23% annualized vs +9.46%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
VFQY has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.2% compared with 15.1% 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 -37.4% for VFQY and -35.7% 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 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
VFQY charges 0.13% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $13 vs $4 annually, a gap of $9 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, VFQY currently yields 1.02% against 2.22% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
33.5% of VFQY's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 25.2% of VYM's money is in holdings VFQY also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
124 positions in common, counted across the 469 positions we hold weights for in VFQY and 557 in VYM, against full books of 452 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 410 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for VFQY (71.9% of the fund), and 332 for VFQY that do not appear in VYM (64.4%).
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 VFQY | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 0.80% | 3.82% | 3.02% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.83% | 2.51% | 1.68% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 1.61% | 0.66% | 0.95% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 0.82% | 1.38% | 0.56% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Company | 0.82% | 1.37% | 0.55% |
| TXNTexas Instrument Inc | 1.05% | 1.02% | 0.03% |
| NEMNewmont Corp Common | 1.35% | 0.41% | 0.94% |
| MMM3M Company | 1.35% | 0.37% | 0.98% |
| CATCaterpillar, Inc. | 0.11% | 1.50% | 1.39% |
| VLOValero Energy | 1.10% | 0.38% | 0.72% |
33.5% of VFQY 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, VFQY or VYM?
VFQY has an expense ratio of 0.13% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $9 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, VFQY or VYM?
Over the past year VFQY returned +13.15% vs +15.34% for VYM, so VYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), VFQY annualized +11.23% vs +9.46% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, VFQY or VYM?
VFQY has been the more volatile fund at 18.2% annualized versus 15.1% for VYM. Worst drawdown: VFQY -37.4% vs VYM -35.7%.
Should I hold both VFQY and VYM?
VFQY and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, 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 VFQY and VYM?
33.5% of VFQY's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 25.2% of VYM's is in holdings VFQY also owns. They hold 124 positions in common, counted across the 469 positions we hold weights for in VFQY and 557 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, VFQY or VYM?
VFQY yields 1.02% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than VFQY?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. VFQY led over the full window, VYM over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. VFQY is less concentrated, with 15.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 26.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.