Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF news

The ETF is recommended as an underrated investment opportunity with strong historical returns (10.99% annually over 10 years), ultra-low fees (0.03%), and research-backed potential for outperformance over the next decade. It offers diversification benefits and exposure to undervalued small-cap stocks.

Recommended as a strong option with the lowest expense ratio (0.03%) in its category, substantial assets under management ($79.09 billion), solid year-to-date and one-year returns (14.05% and 14.76%), and a Buy rating from Zacks. The fund offers excellent diversification with 1,313 holdings and transparent, tax-efficient passive management.

Up 15.4% year-to-date with rally rooted in credible fundamentals including attractive valuations relative to larger stocks and increasingly bullish forward earnings estimates

Recommended as a complement to large-cap holdings, offering exposure to 1,310 small-cap stocks with growth opportunities. Noted as cheaper than Russell 2000 alternatives and highlighted for outperforming large-cap stocks at certain times.

VB is recommended as the better choice due to superior annualized returns (10% since 2004), significantly larger AUM ($182.7B) reducing liquidation risk, lower 5-year drawdown (-28.20% vs -29.90%), and comparable expense ratio (0.03%) with better overall performance.

VB is favored for its lower expense ratio (0.03%), significantly larger AUM ($182.7B) providing superior liquidity and tighter bid-ask spreads, better 5-year performance ($1,446 vs $1,368), and lower volatility (beta 1.04). Recommended as the better choice for long-term buy-and-hold investors.

VB is highlighted for its lower expense ratio (0.03%), broader diversification with 1,300+ holdings, higher dividend yield (1.20%), larger AUM ($177.4B), and superior 5-year growth performance ($1,416 per $1,000 invested). These factors make it attractive for long-term investors seeking lower costs and better liquidity.

VB is recommended as the better choice with a significantly lower expense ratio (0.03%), higher dividend yield (1.2%), superior 5-year annualized returns, lower maximum drawdown, and broader diversification with 1,357 holdings. The article explicitly states it's 'hard to beat VB's miniscule 0.03% expense ratio and better longer-term returns.'

Identified as undervalued with projected 10-year annualized returns of 6.8%, above total market expectations. Broad-based index with over 1,300 stocks, low 0.03% expense ratio, and strong early 2026 performance support positive outlook.

VB is presented as the more diversified option with 1,324 holdings, higher tech exposure, and marginally better performance over both 1 and 5-year periods. The broader portfolio is highlighted as beneficial for limiting risk in volatile small-cap stocks.

Highlighted as a superior alternative with significantly lower expense ratio (0.03% vs 0.58%), massive asset base ($78.49B), and recommended for investors seeking cheaper, lower-risk traditional market cap-weighted options.

Presented as a superior alternative with significantly lower expense ratio (0.03%), much larger asset base ($80.61B), and lower risk profile, making it more attractive for cost-conscious investors.

Presented as a comparable alternative with significantly larger assets ($81 billion) and a slightly lower expense ratio (0.03%), making it a more attractive option for investors seeking similar exposure.

Significantly lower expense ratio (0.03% vs FDM's 0.6%), much larger asset base ($81 billion), and tracks similar small-cap index, making it a more cost-efficient alternative.

Presented as a superior alternative with significantly lower expense ratio (0.03%), much larger asset base ($79.92 billion), and lower risk profile, making it more attractive for cost-conscious investors.

Presented as a comparable alternative with significantly lower expense ratio of 0.03% and substantially larger asset base of $79.92 billion, offering better cost efficiency for similar small-cap exposure.

Presented as a lower-cost alternative with significantly lower expense ratio (0.03%) and substantially larger asset base ($79.92 billion), making it suitable for cost-conscious investors seeking traditional market cap-weighted exposure.

Highlighted as a superior alternative with significantly lower expense ratio (0.03% vs 0.42%) and substantially larger assets ($80.79 billion), making it a more cost-effective choice for small-cap exposure.

Presented as a superior alternative with significantly lower expense ratio (0.03% vs JPSE's 0.29%) and substantially larger assets ($81.40 billion), making it a more attractive option for cost-conscious investors.

Highlighted as a superior alternative with significantly lower expense ratio (0.03%), substantially larger assets ($81.4 billion), and recommended for investors seeking cheaper and lower-risk options.

Presented as a comparable alternative with similar expense ratio (0.03%) and larger asset base ($82.26 billion), but no performance or ranking data provided to differentiate it from SPSM.

Presented as a superior alternative with substantially lower expense ratio (0.03%) and significantly larger asset base ($82.26 billion), making it more attractive for cost-conscious investors.

The article highlights attractive valuations (20% discount to large caps), strong earnings growth forecasts (18.3% in 2027), and recent outperformance (25.5% one-year return), positioning it as a compelling buy opportunity.

Mentioned as a small-cap option but no specific performance data or flows provided; benefits from quality-focused investor rotation but exposed to broader small-cap weaknesses

Positioned as a broad-based diversification option for small-cap exposure with potential upside as market leadership broadens beyond mega-cap tech.

SOFI is held in this broad-based small-cap ETF, but the article does not discuss specific impacts on the fund beyond noting that significant inflows/outflows would affect SOFI trading.

Historical analysis shows small-cap stocks averaged 12.2% returns during war periods, outperforming long-term averages. However, current oil price pressures and affordability concerns may limit upside potential.