Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

AVLV vs VB: how they differ

AVLV and VB hold 14% of their weight in the same names, and AVLV returned more over the year.

Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF and Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, AVLV and VB hold 14% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions AVLV and VB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingAVLVVB
Flex Ltd1.06%0.36%
Williams-Sonoma Inc0.44%0.33%
EMCOR Group Inc0.33%0.45%
TechnipFMC PLC0.54%0.32%
JB Hunt Transport Services Inc0.45%0.27%
Expand Energy Corp0.23%0.27%
Viatris Inc0.37%0.23%
East West Bancorp Inc0.31%0.21%
Talen Energy Corp/Old0.30%0.21%
Nextpower Inc0.46%0.21%
CF Industries Holdings Inc0.35%0.20%
EQT Corp0.23%0.20%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in AVLVOnly in VB
Micron Technology Inc 4.57%Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.55%
Amazon.com Inc 3.18%REVOLUTION Medicines Inc 0.46%
Apple Inc 3.17%Astera Labs Inc 0.45%
Meta Platforms Inc 2.74%Natera Inc 0.45%
Exxon Mobil Corp 2.59%Twilio Inc 0.38%
Caterpillar Inc 2.53%NRG Energy Inc 0.38%
Lam Research Corp 2.52%MKS Instruments Inc 0.37%
Costco Wholesale Corp 2.06%Tapestry Inc 0.36%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

AVLV and VB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
AVLV
Avantis U.S. Large Cap Value ETF
VB
Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerAvantisVanguard
What it isU.S. Large Cap ValueSmall-Cap
Total return, 1 year+31.0%+15.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+13.5 pts−2.3 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50084.5%21.7%
Holdings2751311

AVLV in plain words

AVLV is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Large Cap Value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +31.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 84% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 275 positions, with the top ten at 26.9%.

VB in plain words

VB is an index equity fund tracking the Small-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +15.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 22% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1311 positions, with the top ten at 4.3%. It sat 5.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, AVLV or VB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AVLV returned +31.0% and VB returned +15.2%, so AVLV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, AVLV or VB?
AVLV charges 0.15% a year and VB charges 0.03%, so VB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do AVLV and VB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 84% of AVLV and 22% of VB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 14% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

AVLV against VB, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, AVLV against VB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/AVLV-VB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources