Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

AVEM vs VLUE: how they differ

AVEM and VLUE hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and VLUE returned more over the year.

Avantis Emerging Markets Equity ETF and iShares MSCI USA Value Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, AVEM and VLUE hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions AVEM and VLUE both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingAVEMVLUE
Budimex SA0.03%0.36%
Telekom Malaysia Bhd0.02%2.69%
Truworths International Ltd0.02%0.11%
EG Industries Bhd0.00%0.15%
Text SA0.00%0.27%
Super Group Ltd/South Africa0.00%0.40%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in AVEMOnly in VLUE
SK hynix Inc 7.83%MICRON TECHNOLOGY 21.65%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 6.33%CISCO SYSTEMS INC 4.14%
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 5.70%GENERAL MOTORS 3.72%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 4.11%VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC 3.05%
Tencent Holdings Ltd 1.51%BANK OF AMERICA 2.15%
MediaTek Inc 1.11%FORD MOTOR CO 1.94%
China Construction Bank Corp 0.89%COMCAST CLASS A 1.79%
Alibaba Group Holding Ltd 0.81%HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 1.74%

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 May 31, 2026 and Sep 10, 2026.

AVEM and VLUE on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
AVEM
Avantis Emerging Markets Equity ETF
VLUE
iShares MSCI USA Value Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerAvantisiShares
What it isEmerging Markets EquityMSCI USA Value Factor
Total return, 1 year+31.8%+69.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+14.3 pts+51.9 pts
Expense ratio0.33%0.15%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%96.9%
Holdings3897148

AVEM in plain words

AVEM is an index equity fund tracking the Emerging Markets Equity. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +31.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.33% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 3897 positions, with the top ten at 29.9%. It sat 4.2% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

VLUE in plain words

VLUE is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Value Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +69.4% 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 Sep 10, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 148 positions, with the top ten at 44.6%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, AVEM or VLUE?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AVEM returned +31.8% and VLUE returned +69.4%, so VLUE returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, AVEM or VLUE?
AVEM charges 0.33% a year and VLUE charges 0.15%, so VLUE is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do AVEM and VLUE overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of AVEM and 97% of VLUE 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.

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.

AVEM against VLUE, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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, AVEM against VLUE, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/avem-vs-vlue Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources