Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
MTUM vs VYM: how they differ
MTUM and VYM hold 28% of their weight in the same names, and MTUM returned more over the year.
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF and Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, MTUM and VYM hold 28% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | MTUM | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| BROADCOM INC. | 5.41% | 8.07% |
| JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. | 2.87% | 3.36% |
| EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION | 3.44% | 2.73% |
| JOHNSON & JOHNSON | 3.76% | 2.31% |
| CATERPILLAR INC. | 3.21% | 1.73% |
| THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. | 1.69% | 1.08% |
| WELLS FARGO & COMPANY | 1.26% | 1.07% |
| RTX CORPORATION | 1.46% | 0.99% |
| MORGAN STANLEY | 1.32% | 0.91% |
| INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORAT | 1.20% | 0.90% |
| CITIGROUP INC. | 1.13% | 0.89% |
| ANALOG DEVICES, INC. | 1.02% | 0.82% |
| Only in MTUM | Only in VYM |
|---|---|
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 5.57% | AbbVie Inc 1.57% |
| NVIDIA CORPORATION 4.65% | Cisco Systems Inc 1.52% |
| ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 4.04% | Chevron Corp 1.51% |
| INTEL CORPORATION 3.84% | Bank of America Corp 1.45% |
| LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 3.62% | Procter & Gamble Co/The 1.45% |
| ALPHABET INC. 2.95% | UnitedHealth Group Inc 1.41% |
| WALMART INC. 2.76% | Home Depot Inc/The 1.37% |
| GE VERNOVA INC. 2.54% | Coca-Cola Co/The 1.28% |
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 Apr 30, 2026.
| MTUM iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF | VYM Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | Vanguard |
| What it is | MSCI USA Momentum Factor | US high dividend |
| Total return, 1 year | +21.8% | +17.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +4.3 pts | +0.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.04% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 98.2% | 92.2% |
| Holdings | 125 | 608 |
MTUM in plain words
MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% 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 Apr 30, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 125 positions, with the top ten at 40.5%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
VYM in plain words
VYM is an index equity fund tracking the US high dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.04% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 608 positions, with the top ten at 25.7%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, MTUM or VYM?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, MTUM returned +21.8% and VYM returned +17.6%, so MTUM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, MTUM or VYM?
- MTUM charges 0.15% a year and VYM charges 0.04%, so VYM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do MTUM and VYM overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 98% of MTUM and 92% of VYM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 28% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, MTUM against VYM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/MTUM-VYM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources