VLT vs VYM

VLT vs VYM

Which is better, VLT or VYM?

High Yield Bond against Large Cap Value.

VYM has a lower expense ratio. VYM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: VYMHigher Returns: VYM

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

MetricVLTVYM
Expense Ratio1.95%0.04%Best
AUM$3,093.5$81.6B
Dividend Yield10.38%2.22%
Holdings270613
YTD Return-8.76%+11.47%Best
1Y Return-7.18%+15.94%Best
3Y Return (annualized)+8.63%+18.03%Best
5Y Return (annualized)+1.60%+12.35%Best
Volatility (annualized)19.2%14.6%Best
Max Drawdown-73.3%-58.8%Best
$10,000 over 5 years$10,826$17,901Best
Fund FamilyInvesco (US)Vanguard (US)
CategoryFixed IncomeEquity
StyleHigh Yield BondLarge Cap Value
InceptionApr 28, 1989Nov 10, 2006

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 16, 2006 to Sep 21, 2026 (19.8 years).

VLT 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 19.8 years both funds cover.

VLT vs VYM Performance

Invesco High Income Trust II (VLT) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year VLT returned -7.18% while VYM returned +15.94%. Year to date, VLT is down 8.76% versus a gain of 11.47% for VYM.

Over three years, VLT compounded at +8.63% per year against +18.03% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +1.60% and +12.35% respectively. Across the full 20-year window we track, VYM has the edge at +6.82% annualized vs -0.88%.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

VLT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.2% compared with 14.6% 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 -73.3% for VLT and -58.8% 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 0.56. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.

Fees and Cost Over Time

VLT charges 1.95% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $195 vs $4 annually, a gap of $191 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, VLT currently yields 10.38% against 2.22% for VYM.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of VLT and VYM you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

VLTVYM

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, VLT or VYM?

VLT has an expense ratio of 1.95% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $191 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, VLT or VYM?

Over the past year VLT returned -7.18% vs +15.94% for VYM, so VYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (20 years), VLT annualized -0.88% vs +6.82% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, VLT or VYM?

VLT has been the more volatile fund at 19.2% annualized versus 14.6% for VYM. Worst drawdown: VLT -73.3% vs VYM -58.8%.

Should I hold both VLT and VYM?

VLT and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.56, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, VLT or VYM?

VLT yields 10.38% while VYM yields 2.22%, so VLT currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is VYM better than VLT?

VYM has a lower expense ratio. VYM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.