VB vs VTI: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund ETF Shares (VB) and Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund ETF Shares (VTI) — both US Small Cap / US Large Cap Blend funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
VB (US Small Cap) and VTI (US Large Cap Blend) 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 — VTI scores higher: 75.1 (Grade B+) versus 69.0 for VB. That doesn't make VB a bad fund; it means VTI 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
| VB | VTI | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | US Small Cap | US Large Cap Blend |
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $188.6B | $2.30T |
| Dividend yield | 0.87% | 0.77% |
| 1-year return | +20.98% | +18.13% |
| 3-year return | +47.74% | +66.18% |
| Volatility | 16.40% | 12.91% |
| Max drawdown | -25.36% | -19.30% |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | 1.02 |
| ETFValuer score | 69.0 | 75.1 |
| Grade | B | B+ |
| Overall rank | #123 | #51 |
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 — VB charges 0.03% a year versus VTI's 0.03%. A difference this small (about $0.00 a year on a $10,000 position) isn't a reason to choose one fund over the other.
What VB's Fees Cost You
VB charges an expense ratio of 0.03% 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, VTI returned +66.18% versus +47.74% for VB — a gap of about 18.4 percentage points. On risk, VTI has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-19.30% vs. -25.36%). VTI currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 1.02 vs. 0.97), 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), VB and VTI show a strong correlation of 0.890 — clearly related, with room to diverge. There is some genuine differentiation here, but not enough to call these complementary holdings. Pairing them mostly concentrates risk rather than spreading it.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.890 | Strong — clearly related, with room to diverge |
| R-squared | 79.1% | 79.1% of VB's daily moves are explained by VTI's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 8.73% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | VB +14.50% · VTI +18.82% | VTI ahead by 4.32 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, VB finished as much as +7.5 points ahead of VTI at the best extreme and -13.9 points at the worst — a 21.5-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
VB and VTI share no companies among their top 10 reported holdings. That points to genuinely different exposure, so holding both is more likely to diversify than to duplicate. Full portfolios may still overlap further down the list.
Based on the top 10 holdings in each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean VB if…
- You have no strong preference — VB is a perfectly reasonable default here
Lean VTI if…
- It has been the calmer ride (12.9% volatility vs 16.4%) with a shallower worst-case fall (-19.3% vs -25.4%)
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 66.2% over 3 years against 47.7%
- You want the deeper, more liquid market ($2298B in assets vs $189B)
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 VB or VTI better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — VTI scores higher: 75.1 (Grade B+) versus 69.0 for VB. That doesn't make VB a bad fund; it means VTI 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, VB or VTI?
VTI currently has the lower expense ratio (0.03% vs. 0.03%).
Can I hold both VB and VTI?
You can, though the benefit is limited. At a correlation of 0.89, VB and VTI fall together far more often than not, so owning both adds complexity and a second expense ratio without much real diversification. Most investors are better served picking one.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.