Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
REMX vs VEA: how they differ
Over the year VEA returned more, +24.5% against +21.9%, and VEA charges 0.03% against 0.53%.
VanEck Rare Earth and Strategic Metals ETF and Vanguard Developed Markets Index Fund.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, REMX and VEA hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | REMX | VEA |
|---|---|---|
| Lynas Rare Earths Ltd | 6.80% | 0.04% |
| PLS Group Ltd | 6.84% | 0.03% |
| Almonty Industries Inc | 4.80% | 0.01% |
| Liontown Ltd | 3.92% | 0.01% |
| Iluka Resources Ltd | 3.40% | 0.01% |
| Vulcan Energy Resources Ltd | 1.40% | 0.00% |
| Eramet SA | 0.99% | 0.00% |
| Only in REMX | Only in VEA |
|---|---|
| Xiamen Tungsten Co Ltd 7.28% | ASML Holding NV 2.37% |
| Albemarle Corp 7.24% | Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 1.56% |
| China Northern Rare Earth Group High-Tec 7.06% | SK hynix Inc 1.40% |
| MP Materials Corp 6.20% | HSBC Holdings PLC 1.01% |
| Jinduicheng Molybdenum Co Ltd 5.94% | Novartis AG 0.91% |
| Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile SA 4.92% | Royal Bank of Canada 0.90% |
| Shenghe Resources Holding Co Ltd 4.32% | AstraZeneca PLC 0.87% |
| Ganfeng Lithium Group Co Ltd 4.01% | Nestle SA 0.82% |
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.
| REMX VanEck Rare Earth and Strategic Metals ETF | VEA Vanguard Developed Markets Index Fund | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Thematic ETF | Core index fund |
| Issuer | VanEck | Vanguard |
| What it is | Miners and metals | Developed markets ex US |
| Total return, 1 year | +21.9% | +24.5% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +4.4 pts | +7.0 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.53% | 0.03% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 7.2% | 0.0% |
| Holdings | 30 | 3870 |
REMX in plain words
By weight, 7% of REMX's portfolio is stocks that are also in the S&P 500; its active share against the S&P 500 is 100%. The top ten holdings are 61% of the fund across 30 positions, as filed for Jun 30, 2026. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 the fund returned +21.9% with distributions reinvested against +17.5% for the S&P 500, so a holder was ahead by 4.4 pts. It sits 67.6% below its all-time high of Apr 11, 2011.
VEA in plain words
VEA is an index equity fund tracking the Developed markets ex US. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +24.5% 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, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 3870 positions, with the top ten at 13.2%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, REMX or VEA?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, REMX returned +21.9% and VEA returned +24.5%, so VEA returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, REMX or VEA?
- REMX charges 0.53% a year and VEA charges 0.03%, so VEA is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do REMX and VEA overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 7% of REMX and 0% of VEA by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 0% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.
- Are REMX and VEA the same kind of fund?
- No. REMX is a thematic ETF and VEA is an index ETF, so they are built for different jobs. The table compares what both publish: return, cost and what each actually holds.
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, REMX against VEA, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/REMX-VEA Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources