ECML vs. VBR

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

ECML (Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF) and VBR (Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. ECML is actively managed, while VBR is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ECML returned 12.03%/yr vs 14.39%/yr for VBR. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. ECML charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for VBR.

Performance

ECML vs. VBR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) and Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECML achieves a 19.84% return, which is significantly higher than VBR's 16.70% return.

ECML

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: 2.28%
• 6M: 13.37%
• YTD: 19.84%
• 1Y: 32.00%
• 3Y*: 12.03%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.95%

VBR

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 0.58%
• 6M: 10.78%
• YTD: 16.70%
• 1Y: 27.67%
• 3Y*: 14.39%
• 5Y*: 9.74%
• 10Y*: 10.75%
• ALL TIME*: 9.66%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ECML Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	$548.16K	$300.59K	$261.72K
VBR Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF	$56.96M	$55.85M	$67.93M

ECML vs. VBR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ECML Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	19.84%	6.82%	2.37%	26.00%
VBR Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF	16.70%	9.09%	12.40%	18.19%

Correlation

The correlation between ECML and VBR is 0.86, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2023	0.89

The correlation between ECML and VBR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

ECML vs. VBR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ECML	VBR
Consumer Cyclical	24.6%	13.6%
Healthcare	14.4%	8.4%
Energy	13.2%	4.3%
Industrials	13.0%	17.3%
Consumer Defensive	12.3%	4.2%
Basic Materials	11.6%	5.3%
Technology	7.6%	10.9%
Communication Services	3.3%	2.4%
Utilities	1.4%	4.9%
Financial Services	-	17.5%
Real Estate	-	11.1%

Return for Risk

ECML vs. VBR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ECML

ECML Risk / Return Rank: 90
ECML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ECML Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
ECML Omega Ratio Rank: 86
ECML Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
ECML Martin Ratio Rank: 88

VBR

VBR Risk / Return Rank: 79
VBR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
VBR Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
VBR Omega Ratio Rank: 75
VBR Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
VBR Martin Ratio Rank: 82

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ECML vs. VBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) and Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ECML	VBR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	1.75	+0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.40	2.58	+0.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.31	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.46	2.93	+1.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.07	10.70	+2.37

ECML vs. VBR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECML Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is comparable to the VBR Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECML and VBR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ECML vs. VBR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECML drawdown since its inception was -24.66%, smaller than the maximum VBR drawdown of -61.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECML and VBR.

Drawdown Indicators

	ECML	VBR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.66%	-61.98%	+37.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.01%	-8.85%	+1.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.66%	-24.19%	-0.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.19%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-45.28%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.11%	-1.40%	+0.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.62%	-8.21%	+2.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.39%	2.42%	-0.03%

Volatility

ECML vs. VBR - Volatility Comparison

Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) and Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (VBR) have volatilities of 3.32% and 3.36%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ECML	VBR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.32%	3.36%	-0.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.21%	10.22%	-1.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.05%	14.90%	-0.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.12%	19.56%	-1.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.12%	21.66%	-3.54%

ECML vs. VBR - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than VBR's 0.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECML vs. VBR - Dividend Comparison

ECML's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.15%, less than VBR's 1.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ECML Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	1.15%	1.38%	0.98%	0.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VBR Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF	1.77%	1.95%	1.98%	2.12%	2.03%	1.75%	1.68%	2.06%	2.35%	1.79%	1.77%	1.99%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ECML and VBR in my portfolio?

ECML and VBR have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ECML or VBR?

VBR has higher volatility (3.36%) compared to ECML (3.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECML dropped -24.66% vs VBR's -61.98%.

Which ETF is better, ECML or VBR?

On 3-year performance, VBR leads with 14.39% vs 12.03% for ECML. On fees, VBR is cheaper at 0.05% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ECML or VBR?

Over the 3-year period, VBR has performed better with a 14.39% return vs 12.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ECML or VBR?

VBR is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ECML.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ECML or VBR?

VBR has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 1.15% for ECML.

What is the main difference between ECML and VBR?

They also come from different issuers: Euclidean and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for ECML and 0.05% for VBR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ECML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 1.75), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.