TMFS vs. VB
TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) and VB (Vanguard Small-Cap ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TMFS is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Motley Fool, while VB is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the CRSP US Small Cap Index. TMFS is actively managed, while VB is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMFS returned -1.68%/yr vs 7.11%/yr for VB. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TMFS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for VB.
Performance
TMFS vs. VB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMFS achieves a -4.69% return, which is significantly lower than VB's 14.16% return.
TMFS
- 1D
- -1.11%
- 1M
- -3.92%
- YTD
- -4.69%
- 6M
- -6.04%
- 1Y
- -3.97%
- 3Y*
- 6.32%
- 5Y*
- -1.68%
- 10Y*
- —
VB
- 1D
- -0.65%
- 1M
- 3.52%
- YTD
- 14.16%
- 6M
- 14.12%
- 1Y
- 28.82%
- 3Y*
- 17.05%
- 5Y*
- 7.11%
- 10Y*
- 11.30%
TMFS vs. VB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | -4.69% | -1.59% | 15.41% | 25.40% | -33.15% | -2.38% | 58.52% | 40.19% | -8.11% |
VB Vanguard Small-Cap ETF | 14.16% | 8.87% | 14.17% | 18.22% | -17.51% | 17.57% | 19.19% | 27.34% | -8.51% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMFS and VB is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.83 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.89 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2018 | 0.87 |
The correlation between TMFS and VB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.
TMFS vs. VB - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
TMFS
VB
Technology
Industrials
Healthcare
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Real Estate
Basic Materials
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
-
Utilities
-
Technology
TMFS
VB
Industrials
TMFS
VB
Healthcare
TMFS
VB
Financial Services
TMFS
VB
Consumer Cyclical
TMFS
VB
Real Estate
TMFS
VB
Basic Materials
TMFS
VB
Energy
TMFS
VB
Consumer Defensive
TMFS
VB
Communication Services
TMFS
-
VB
Utilities
TMFS
-
VB
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
TMFS vs. VB — Risk / Return Rank
TMFS
VB
TMFS vs. VB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and Vanguard Small-Cap ETF (VB). 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.
| TMFS | VB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.99 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.72 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.98 | 1.31 | -0.33 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.25 | 3.22 | -3.48 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.70 | 11.87 | -12.57 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| TMFS | VB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.20 | 1.78 | -1.99 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.07 | 0.34 | -0.42 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.53 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.32 | 0.44 | -0.12 |
Drawdowns
TMFS vs. VB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMFS drawdown since its inception was -48.79%, smaller than the maximum VB drawdown of -59.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFS and VB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMFS | VB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.79% | -59.56% | +10.77% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.73% | -8.98% | -6.75% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.05% | -25.36% | -1.69% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.68% | -28.15% | -17.53% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -42.05% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -22.78% | -0.65% | -22.13% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.47% | -8.44% | -11.03% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.68% | 2.43% | +3.25% |
Volatility
TMFS vs. VB - Volatility Comparison
Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) has a higher volatility of 5.23% compared to Vanguard Small-Cap ETF (VB) at 4.42%. This indicates that TMFS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TMFS | VB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.23% | 4.42% | +0.81% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.98% | 11.72% | +2.26% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.62% | 16.28% | +3.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.93% | 20.74% | +2.19% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.52% | 21.42% | +4.10% |
TMFS vs. VB - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than VB's 0.05% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMFS vs. VB - Dividend Comparison
TMFS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while VB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.19%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.34% | 2.37% | 5.57% | 2.65% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
VB Vanguard Small-Cap ETF | 1.19% | 1.33% | 1.30% | 1.55% | 1.59% | 1.24% | 1.14% | 1.39% | 1.67% | 1.35% | 1.50% | 1.48% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMFS and VB have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
TMFS has higher volatility (5.23%) compared to VB (4.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFS dropped -48.79% vs VB's -59.56%.
On 5-year performance, VB leads with 7.11% vs -1.68% for TMFS. On fees, VB is cheaper at 0.05% per year. On volatility, VB has been the lower-risk option at 4.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, VB has performed better with a 7.11% return vs -1.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
VB is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFS.
VB has the higher dividend yield at 1.19%, compared with 0.00% for TMFS.
TMFS is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while VB is Small Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFS and 0.05% for VB.
VB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs -0.20), 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.
Find the right allocation for TMFS and VB
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