PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QMOM vs. VOT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QMOM vs. VOT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF (QMOM) and Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF (VOT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QMOM achieves a 24.65% return, which is significantly higher than VOT's 8.39% return. Over the past 10 years, QMOM has outperformed VOT with an annualized return of 13.82%, while VOT has yielded a comparatively lower 12.18% annualized return.


QMOM

1D
-0.37%
1M
6.10%
YTD
24.65%
6M
26.71%
1Y
31.51%
3Y*
23.22%
5Y*
11.55%
10Y*
13.82%

VOT

1D
-0.83%
1M
5.62%
YTD
8.39%
6M
6.44%
1Y
11.36%
3Y*
16.24%
5Y*
6.88%
10Y*
12.18%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QMOM vs. VOT - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QMOM
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF
24.65%2.36%30.43%9.50%-6.99%-4.06%61.94%28.39%-11.75%15.92%
VOT
Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF
8.39%10.72%16.38%23.10%-28.87%20.50%34.50%33.76%-5.56%21.80%

Correlation

The correlation between QMOM and VOT is 0.79, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.79

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.83

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.78

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.78

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 5, 2016

0.77

The correlation between QMOM and VOT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

QMOM vs. VOT - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QMOM
VOT

Industrials

37.5%
23.7%

Technology

23.9%
28.9%

Basic Materials

9.0%
1.8%

Healthcare

8.9%
9.3%

Consumer Cyclical

7.4%
13.9%

Energy

5.5%
2.7%

Communication Services

4.2%
3.8%

Utilities

2.0%
3.5%

Financial Services

1.9%
6.8%

Consumer Defensive

1.6%
0.8%

Real Estate

-

4.8%

Industrials

QMOM
37.5%
VOT
23.7%

Technology

QMOM
23.9%
VOT
28.9%

Basic Materials

QMOM
9.0%
VOT
1.8%

Healthcare

QMOM
8.9%
VOT
9.3%

Consumer Cyclical

QMOM
7.4%
VOT
13.9%

Energy

QMOM
5.5%
VOT
2.7%

Communication Services

QMOM
4.2%
VOT
3.8%

Utilities

QMOM
2.0%
VOT
3.5%

Financial Services

QMOM
1.9%
VOT
6.8%

Consumer Defensive

QMOM
1.6%
VOT
0.8%

Real Estate

QMOM

-

VOT
4.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

QMOM vs. VOT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

QMOM
QMOM Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
QMOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3737
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QMOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
QMOM Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
QMOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
QMOM Martin Ratio Rank: 5353
Martin Ratio Rank

VOT
VOT Risk / Return Rank: 1919
Overall Rank
VOT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VOT Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
VOT Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
VOT Calmar Ratio Rank: 1717
Calmar Ratio Rank
VOT Martin Ratio Rank: 1919
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

QMOM vs. VOT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF (QMOM) and Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF (VOT). 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.


QMOMVOTDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.36

0.72

+0.64

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.91

1.10

+0.80

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.13

+0.12

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.50

0.72

+1.79

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

9.15

2.14

+7.00

QMOM vs. VOT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QMOM Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is higher than the VOT Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QMOM and VOT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


QMOMVOTDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.36

0.72

+0.64

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.48

0.32

+0.16

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.52

0.58

-0.06

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.52

0.45

+0.06

Drawdowns

QMOM vs. VOT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QMOM drawdown since its inception was -39.13%, smaller than the maximum VOT drawdown of -60.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QMOM and VOT.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QMOMVOTDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.13%

-60.16%

+21.03%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.65%

-15.96%

+3.31%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.46%

-21.77%

-4.69%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.82%

-37.19%

+10.37%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.13%

-37.19%

-1.94%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.37%

-0.83%

+0.46%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.92%

-9.96%

-2.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.45%

5.32%

-1.87%

Volatility

QMOM vs. VOT - Volatility Comparison

Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF (QMOM) has a higher volatility of 8.32% compared to Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF (VOT) at 4.37%. This indicates that QMOM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VOT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QMOMVOTDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.32%

4.37%

+3.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.78%

12.36%

+7.42%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.30%

15.81%

+7.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.19%

21.36%

+2.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.49%

20.99%

+5.50%

QMOM vs. VOT - Expense Ratio Comparison

QMOM has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is higher than VOT's 0.07% expense ratio.


Dividends

QMOM vs. VOT - Dividend Comparison

QMOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.44%, less than VOT's 0.61% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
QMOM
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF
0.44%0.54%1.40%0.87%1.59%0.12%0.08%0.01%0.05%0.13%0.34%0.00%
VOT
Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF
0.61%0.64%0.67%0.71%0.78%0.34%0.56%0.78%0.84%0.72%0.81%0.81%

Frequently Asked Questions


QMOM and VOT have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QMOM has higher volatility (8.32%) compared to VOT (4.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QMOM dropped -39.13% vs VOT's -60.16%.

On 10-year performance, QMOM leads with 13.82% vs 12.18% for VOT. On fees, VOT is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, VOT has been the lower-risk option at 4.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, QMOM has performed better with a 13.82% return vs 12.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

VOT is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for QMOM.

VOT has the higher dividend yield at 0.61%, compared with 0.44% for QMOM.

QMOM is categorized as Momentum, while VOT is Mid Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Alpha Architect and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for QMOM and 0.07% for VOT.

QMOM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 0.72), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QMOM and VOT

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer