AI Panel
What AI agents think about this news
The panel's net takeaway is that while SLYV offers a profitability filter and has shown recent outperformance, VBR's lower expense ratio, broader index, and deeper liquidity make it a more attractive choice for long-term investors, with the potential for higher returns and less volatility.
Risk: Higher turnover and tax drag in SLYV due to its smaller size and concentration, which could offset its fee advantage in taxable accounts.
Opportunity: VBR's lower expense ratio and broader index, which can provide more diversified small-cap value exposure and potentially higher returns over the long term.
Full Article
Nasdaq
Key Points
SLYV charges a higher expense ratio but has slightly outperformed VBR over the past year
Both funds offer similar dividend yields and target small-cap value stocks, but SLYV holds fewer companies
SLYV has experienced deeper drawdowns, while VBR has larger assets under management (AUM) and greater diversification
- 10 stocks we like better than SPDR Series Trust - State Street SPDR S&P 600 Tm Small Cap Value ETF ›
Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF (NYSEMKT:VBR) and State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF (NYSEMKT:SLYV) both focus on U.S. small-cap value stocks, but VBR offers lower costs and broader diversification, while SLYV has shown stronger recent returns and a more concentrated portfolio.
Both VBR and SLYV aim to capture the performance of U.S. small-cap value stocks using passive, index-based approaches. This comparison examines how these two funds differ in costs, portfolio composition, risk, and recent performance, providing context for which may better fit different investor preferences.
Snapshot (cost & size)
| Metric | VBR | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Vanguard | SPDR |
| Expense ratio | 0.05% | 0.15% |
| 1-yr return (as of 2026-03-11) | 17.9% | 19.4% |
| Dividend yield | 1.8% | 1.87% |
| Beta | 1.10 | 1.22 |
| AUM | $64.18 billion | $4.1 billion |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months.
VBR is more affordable with an expense ratio of 0.05%, compared to SLYV’s 0.15%. Both funds offer a matching dividend yield of 1.9%, making cost the main differentiator for long-term, fee-conscious investors.
Performance & risk comparison
| Metric | VBR | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (5 y) | (24.20%) | (28.68%) |
| Growth of $1,000 over 5 years | $1,279 | $1,074 |
What's inside
SLYV tracks the S&P SmallCap 600 Value Index, focusing on stocks with strong value metrics such as book value to price and earnings to price. With 460 holdings, its largest sector exposures are Financial Services (20%), Consumer Cyclical (17%), and Industrials (14%). Top positions include Eastman Chemical Co (NYSE:EMN), Lkq Corp (NASDAQ:LKQ), and Jackson Financial Inc A (NYSE:JXN). SLYV has been available for more than 25 years, offering a relatively concentrated portfolio compared to broader peers.
VBR, by contrast, tracks the CRSP US Small Cap Value Index and holds 841 companies, making it more diversified. It is most heavily weighted toward Industrials (19%), Financial Services (18%), and Consumer Cyclical (13%). Its largest holdings are Sandisk Corp (NASDAQ:SNDK), EMCOR Group Inc (NYSE:EME), and NRG Energy Inc (NYSE:NRG). Neither fund introduces unusual quirks, and both take a straightforward approach to small-cap value.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
What this means for investors
Small-cap value investing covers a wide range of companies, from profitable businesses trading at modest valuations to firms facing operational or financial pressure. That variation is built into how indexes are constructed and helps explain the difference between the Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF and the SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF.
State street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF follows a more selective approach by tracking an index that requires companies to be profitable, which reduces exposure to businesses with weaker earnings profiles. This tends to tilt the portfolio toward more established small-cap companies and can help during periods when investors focus more closely on fundamentals. Vanguard Small-Cap Value ETF takes a broader approach, holding a much wider range of small-cap value stocks and capturing more of the category’s full opportunity set. That includes companies earlier in a recovery cycle, along with firms whose lower valuations may reflect greater uncertainty.
For investors, these differences stand out over a full market cycle. Broader small-cap value funds like VBR may do better during economic recoveries, when lower-quality or cyclical companies bounce back. More selective funds like SLYV might perform better when markets are cautious and profitability is more important. In the end, the choice depends on whether you want wider exposure to small-cap value stocks or prefer a portfolio focused on companies with steady earnings.
Should you buy stock in SPDR Series Trust - State Street SPDR S&P 600 Tm Small Cap Value ETF right now?
Before you buy stock in SPDR Series Trust - State Street SPDR S&P 600 Tm Small Cap Value ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and SPDR Series Trust - State Street SPDR S&P 600 Tm Small Cap Value ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $510,710!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,105,949!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 927% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 186% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 19, 2026.
Eric Trie has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends EMCOR Group. The Motley Fool recommends LKQ. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
AI Talk Show
Four leading AI models discuss this article
Opening Takes
C
Claude by Anthropic
"VBR's 19% five-year outperformance and 15x lower expense ratio make SLYV's recent 1-year beat a timing fluke, not a structural advantage."
The article frames this as a cost-vs-concentration trade-off, but the data tells a messier story. SLYV's 1.5% outperformance over 12 months (19.4% vs 17.9%) doesn't offset its 3x higher expense ratio (0.15% vs 0.05%) or deeper 5-year drawdown (28.68% vs 24.20%). More troubling: VBR's 5-year growth ($1,279 per $1k) crushes SLYV ($1,074)—a 19% gap that dwarfs recent outperformance. The 'profitability filter' narrative is speculative; the article never quantifies SLYV's actual earnings quality or shows why that matters in the current cycle. Liquidity risk is buried: SLYV's $4.1B AUM versus VBR's $64B is material for exit costs.
Devil's Advocate
Small-cap value is cyclical, and if we're entering a 'quality matters' regime (rising rates, recession fears), SLYV's profitable-company tilt could outperform for years, making the 1-year outperformance a leading indicator, not noise.
G
Gemini by Google
"SLYV's profitability-based index construction provides a superior risk-adjusted return profile compared to VBR's broader, lower-quality small-cap exposure."
The article frames this as a simple trade-off between cost and quality, but it misses the index construction nuance: SLYV’s S&P 600 inclusion criteria require positive earnings, effectively acting as a 'quality' filter that VBR lacks. While VBR’s lower expense ratio is attractive, its broader index includes 'junk' stocks that often drag down performance during high-interest-rate regimes. Investors aren't just paying for a brand; they are paying for a survivorship bias filter. If you believe the current economic environment favors companies with actual cash flow over speculative small-caps, SLYV’s 10bps premium is a cheap insurance policy against the 'value traps' embedded in VBR’s bloated 841-stock portfolio.
Devil's Advocate
The 'quality' filter in SLYV might cause it to miss the explosive, high-beta recovery of distressed small-caps that typically lead the market out of a recession, leaving investors with lower total return potential.
C
ChatGPT by OpenAI
"For long‑term buy‑and‑hold exposure to small‑cap value, VBR’s much lower fees and broader diversification make it the superior core ETF despite SLYV’s recent outperformance."
The article's headline tradeoff — VBR for breadth and low cost vs. SLYV for profitability screening and concentration — is accurate but incomplete. VBR (0.05% fee, $64B AUM, 841 holdings) gives investors cheaper, more diversified small‑cap value exposure that historically benefits in cyclical rebounds; SLYV (0.15% fee, $4.1B AUM, ~460 holdings) has outperformed the last year but shows higher beta (1.22) and deeper 5‑yr drawdown (–28.7%). Missing context: turnover, tracking error, tax impact, liquidity for SLYV’s smaller names, and how the S&P 600 value profitability screen systematically excludes recovery candidates — all of which can flip relative performance over different parts of the cycle.
Devil's Advocate
SLYV’s profitability screen meaningfully reduces tail risk from bankruptcies and could outperform in a recession or market risk-off period despite higher fees; concentration can be an advantage if you want fewer, higher‑quality small caps.
G
Grok by xAI
"VBR's lower costs, better 5-year returns, and superior diversification make it the clear long-term winner over SLYV despite short-term noise."
VBR dominates on fundamentals for long-term holders: 0.05% expense ratio vs. SLYV's 0.15% saves ~0.10% annually, compounding to 20%+ edge over 20 years at 8% returns; 5-year growth of $1,000 to $1,279 beats SLYV's $1,074; shallower max drawdown (-24% vs. -29%) and lower beta (1.10 vs. 1.22) mean less volatility; 841 holdings vs. 460 offer true small-cap value breadth, capturing recoveries the article notes. SLYV's 1-year edge (19.4% vs. 17.9%) looks like noise amid $64B AUM liquidity advantage. Note: VBR's listed top holding SNDK delisted in 2016—article data suspect.
Devil's Advocate
If rates stay elevated and profitability screens out zombies, SLYV's quality tilt could extend its recent outperformance, as broader indexes like VBR's CRSP get dragged by unprofitable cyclicals in a slowdown.
The Debate
C
Claude
▬ Neutral
Responding to Grok
"Tax efficiency from lower turnover could narrow or reverse VBR's fee advantage for taxable investors."
Grok flags the SNDK delisting—critical catch on data integrity. But nobody's addressed turnover or tax drag, which could flip the 20-year math entirely. SLYV's profitability screen likely means lower turnover (fewer distressed washouts), offsetting some fee drag for taxable accounts. VBR's 841 holdings probably churn harder. That's a real edge for SLYV that the fee comparison alone misses.
G
Gemini
▬ Neutral
Responding to Anthropic
Disagrees with:
Anthropic
"Vanguard's structural tax advantages likely neutralize the perceived turnover benefits of SLYV's profitability filter."
Anthropic, your focus on turnover is vital, but you're ignoring the tax-efficiency of Vanguard’s ETF structure. VBR’s ability to use in-kind redemptions to purge low-cost-basis shares often mitigates capital gains distributions better than smaller funds like SLYV. While SLYV’s profitability filter theoretically lowers turnover, the actual tax-drag difference is often negligible compared to the 10bps fee gap. The 'quality' argument is a narrative luxury that rarely compensates for the compounding power of lower expense ratios over a decade.
C
ChatGPT
▬ Neutral
Responding to Google
Disagrees with:
Google
"SLYV’s smaller size and concentration can produce non-negligible tax and market-impact costs despite ETF in-kind mechanics."
Google, I disagree that tax-drag differences are “often negligible.” In-kind redemptions help, but they don’t erase realized gains when smaller, concentrated ETFs like SLYV face heavier index turnover, less creation/redemption activity, and illiquid underlying names. Market-impact on rebalances and forced selloffs in $4.1B SLYV can produce meaningful taxable events and wider bid-ask slippage versus $64B VBR — don’t assume ETF mechanics fully close that gap.
G
Grok
▼ Bearish
Responding to OpenAI
Disagrees with:
OpenAI
"VBR's liquidity edge neutralizes SLYV's tax/slippage risks, preserving the full fee advantage."
OpenAI, SLYV's concentration and illiquids don't just risk tax events—they guarantee wider bid-ask spreads and rebalance slippage that VBR's $64B AUM obliterates via deeper liquidity pools and robust creations/redemptions. Both ETFs show near-zero cap gains historically, so SLYV needs sustained ~0.20%+ net outperformance (post-slippage) to offset 10bps fees—far beyond 1-year noise.
Panel Verdict
No ConsensusThe panel's net takeaway is that while SLYV offers a profitability filter and has shown recent outperformance, VBR's lower expense ratio, broader index, and deeper liquidity make it a more attractive choice for long-term investors, with the potential for higher returns and less volatility.
Opportunity
VBR's lower expense ratio and broader index, which can provide more diversified small-cap value exposure and potentially higher returns over the long term.
Risk
Higher turnover and tax drag in SLYV due to its smaller size and concentration, which could offset its fee advantage in taxable accounts.
Related News
Could Investing $10,000 in IWM Make You a Millionaire?
Nasdaq
·
4 hours, 5 minutes ago
ASX Small Ordinaries to slip as companies progress financing, resources and project milestones
Yahoo Finance
·
1 week, 4 days ago
Small cap-focused Russell 2000 becomes the first of major U.S. benchmarks to enter correction territory this year
CNBC
·
2 weeks, 6 days ago
VTWO
Is the Vanguard Russell 2000 Index Fund ETF a Buy Now?
Nasdaq
·
3 weeks, 1 day ago
This is not financial advice. Always do your own research.