IJH vs VB: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap ETF (IJH) and Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund ETF Shares (VB) — both US Mid Cap / US Small Cap funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
IJH (US Mid Cap) and VB (US Small Cap) sit in different corners of the market, so this is less a head-to-head than a question of what role each would play. They can be complements rather than alternatives — the metrics below show how differently the two have actually behaved.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — VB scores higher: 69.0 (Grade B) versus 66.5 for IJH. That doesn't make IJH a bad fund; it means VB currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| IJH | VB | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | US Mid Cap | US Small Cap |
| Expense ratio | 0.05% | 0.03% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $124.3B | $188.6B |
| Dividend yield | 3.72% | 0.87% |
| 1-year return | +19.19% | +20.98% |
| 3-year return | +44.92% | +47.74% |
| Volatility | 15.71% | 16.40% |
| Max drawdown | -24.10% | -25.36% |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.90 | 0.97 |
| ETFValuer score | 66.5 | 69.0 |
| Grade | B | B |
| Overall rank | #156 | #123 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
On cost, the two are essentially tied — IJH charges 0.05% a year versus VB's 0.03%. A difference this small (about $2.00 a year on a $10,000 position) isn't a reason to choose one fund over the other.
What IJH's Fees Cost You
IJH charges an expense ratio of 0.05% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, VB returned +47.74% versus +44.92% for IJH — a gap of about 2.8 percentage points. On risk, IJH has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-24.10% vs. -25.36%). VB currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 0.97 vs. 0.90), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (752 shared trading days), IJH and VB show a extremely high correlation of 0.989 — very close substitutes. Holding both would add very little diversification: when one falls, the other almost always falls with it. Treat these as alternatives to each other, not as complements in the same portfolio.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.989 | Extremely high — very close substitutes |
| R-squared | 97.7% | 97.7% of IJH's daily moves are explained by VB's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 2.94% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | IJH +13.46% · VB +14.50% | VB ahead by 1.04 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, IJH finished as much as +1.9 points ahead of VB at the best extreme and -5.2 points at the worst — a 7.1-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
IJH and VB hold 2 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 1.7% of IJH and 0.8% of VB. That's modest duplication — the funds are mostly distinct at the top, so holding both can still add diversification.
| Shared Holding | IJH Weight | VB Weight |
|---|---|---|
| TechnipFMC PLC | 0.87% | 0.39% |
| Casey'S General Stores Inc. | 0.84% | 0.38% |
Compares the top 10 reported holdings from each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing, so it understates total overlap — funds tracking similar indexes overlap far more deeply than the top 10 alone can show. Search any company across all tracked funds with the Stock Overlap tool.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean IJH if…
- Current income matters to you — it yields 3.72% against 0.87%
Lean VB if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.03% vs 0.05%, about $2 a year less on a $10,000 position
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 47.7% over 3 years against 44.9%
These two are not really substitutes, so "both, in some proportion" is often the right answer rather than picking one. Model the blend with the Portfolio Blender.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is IJH or VB better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — VB scores higher: 69.0 (Grade B) versus 66.5 for IJH. That doesn't make IJH a bad fund; it means VB currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, IJH or VB?
VB currently has the lower expense ratio (0.03% vs. 0.05%).
Can I hold both IJH and VB?
You can, but there's little point. IJH and VB have a daily return correlation of 0.99 over the past 3.0 years, meaning they move almost in lockstep. Holding both roughly doubles a single bet rather than spreading it — pick whichever wins on cost and liquidity and put the money in one place.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.