Dividend-focused investors have made Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (NYSEARCA:VYM) one of the largest yield-tilted funds available, with $78.33B in assets and 618 holdings spanning U.S. large-cap dividend payers. VYM’s appeal is straightforward: broad diversification, a very low fee, and a portfolio built around the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index. For an investor who wants a single-ticker slice of the dividend-paying half of the U.S. market, VYM is a defensible core holding. The question is whether a differently constructed rival, Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF (NYSEARCA:SCHD), does the same job better for anyone specifically prioritizing income.
The Case People Buy the Fund For
The fund tracks a simple screen: U.S. stocks with above-average forecast yields, weighted by market cap. That produces the mega-cap dividend roster investors expect, with top holdings including Broadcom at roughly 6.5%, JPMorgan Chase at roughly 3.4%, and Exxon Mobil at roughly 2.8%.
The fund’s beta of 0.74 indicates lower volatility relative to the broader market. Over the last year, the fund delivered a 31.99% total return, and since its inception in November 2006, it has averaged 9.26% annually.
Where the Yield Argument Turns
The fund currently yields 2.25% on trailing twelve-month distributions of approximately $3.63 per share. That is competitive against the S&P 500, though modest for a fund whose name promises “high” yield.
An alternative that tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 Index screens for companies with at least 10 consecutive years of dividend payments and then ranks them by cash flow to debt, return on equity, indicated yield, and five-year dividend growth. That produces a tighter, higher-yielding portfolio.
The alternative’s trailing yield sits near 3.36%, meaningfully above the first fund’s 2.25%. That yield gap is the swap’s core mechanism. With $100,000 invested, the difference between roughly 2.3% and roughly 3.4% amounts to close to $1,100 in additional annual income, before any dividend growth on top.
Performance in Context
Over the past year, the alternative returned 28.28%, compared with the first fund’s 31.99%. Year to date, the alternative is up roughly 15.5% versus the first fund’s 9.2%. Over five years, the first fund’s return of roughly 76.7% trails the S&P 500 but leads the alternative depending on the measurement period.
Over ten years, the alternative’s annualized average return of 12.58% beats the first fund’s 11.72%. The “beat the S&P” claim holds recently rather than universally. The alternative’s quality screen tends to lag in growth-led rallies and lead when dividend payers reassert themselves.
The alternative’s expense ratio is 0.06%, while the first fund’s is 0.04%. Both figures are trivially low, and the gap works out to $2 per $10,000 per year. The first fund is actually the cheaper option on this axis. The alternative’s advantage stems from the screening methodology and the resulting yield density, with the fee serving as a minor offset.
Tradeoffs Worth Naming
The alternative is a more concentrated portfolio than the first fund. Its top holdings, including Bristol-Myers Squibb at 4.26%, Merck at 4.14%, and ConocoPhillips at 4.10%, each carry roughly 4% weight, versus the first fund’s more diffuse structure, led by Broadcom at roughly 6.5%. The alternative tilts harder toward healthcare, energy, and consumer staples, and excludes REITs.
Its $71.6 billion in net assets is smaller than the first fund’s $94.6 billion, but still deeply liquid. Tax treatment is comparable: both pay qualified dividends on most holdings. Selling the first fund in a taxable account to buy the alternative triggers capital gains on any embedded appreciation, which for long-term holders can be substantial. In an IRA or 401(k), the switch is frictionless.
The clearest case for the alternative is an investor holding the first fund specifically for current income who wants a higher payout without stepping into leveraged or covered-call structures. Splitting the position, keeping the first fund for diversification breadth and adding the alternative for yield density, captures both goals without a full liquidation event in a taxable account.
An investor who bought the first fund as a low-volatility total-return holding gets less from the switch. If the alternative’s yield premium compresses toward the first fund’s, the primary reason to swap narrows. The decision rests on which of income, diversification, or defense is being prioritized right now.
Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.
Top Gaining Stocks
Top Losing Stocks