The latest ETF performance comparison highlights how sharply results can diverge across investment strategies that are all offered by the same asset manager. Over the five-year period shown in the supplied data, several Vanguard ETFs outperformed the broad S&P 500 benchmark represented by VOO, with energy producing the largest gap and technology-oriented exposure also delivering a substantial advantage.

Energy Leads Vanguard’s Five-Year ETF Performance

The Vanguard Energy ETF (VDE) ranks first in the supplied comparison, with a five-year annualized return of 25.84%, substantially above VOO’s 12.75%. Vanguard confirms that VDE tracks the MSCI US Investable Market Energy 25/50 Index and provides exposure across large-, mid- and small-cap U.S. energy companies.

The strength of energy has also extended into 2026. Vanguard’s data show VDE with a 46.05% one-year return through August 31 and a 47.12% year-to-date NAV return through September 10. The fund’s strong recent performance reflects the powerful contribution of energy stocks to the broader market during the latest period, although sector-specific returns can be considerably more volatile than those of a diversified large-cap index.

The five-year comparison therefore should not be interpreted simply as evidence that one strategy is permanently superior. Instead, it demonstrates how a prolonged period of strong performance in a particular sector can produce a substantial cumulative difference relative to a broad-market benchmark.

Technology and Factor Strategies Also Outperformed

The supplied ETF Tracker comparison places the Vanguard Information Technology ETF (VGT) second, with an annualized five-year return of 18.50%. The Vanguard U.S. Multifactor ETF (VFMF) follows at 14.59%, while the Vanguard International High Dividend Yield ETF (VYMI) records 14.14%. These results all exceed the 12.75% figure shown for VOO.

The technology result reflects the continued importance of large U.S. technology companies within the market’s long-term earnings and valuation cycle. Meanwhile, VFMF uses a materially different approach: Vanguard says the fund targets value, momentum and quality factors, subject to an initial volatility screen. Its 2026 performance has remained strong, with Vanguard reporting a 32.29% one-year NAV return through August 31 and a 23.14% year-to-date return through September 10.

This distinction is important because factor-based strategies can perform differently from market-cap-weighted indexes depending on the economic environment. The comparison therefore shows that ETF selection is not solely about choosing between stocks and bonds; the underlying methodology can materially change the return profile.

Mega-Cap, Growth and Value Strategies Show Smaller Gaps

The remaining ETFs in the supplied ranking also exceeded VOO, but by narrower margins. The Vanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC) posted 13.32%, the Vanguard Mega Cap Growth ETF (MGK) 13.14%, the Vanguard S&P 500 Growth ETF (VOOG) 13.02% and the Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF (MGV) 12.90%, compared with 12.75% for VOO.

The relatively small differences are notable because these strategies overlap significantly with the large companies already represented in the S&P 500. Vanguard’s VOO, for example, held 505 securities as of July 31, 2026, while its assets reached approximately $1.76 trillion at the end of August.

The comparison also shows that diversification does not necessarily mean identical performance. VOO’s broad exposure spreads capital across the major U.S. equity market, while sector, style and factor ETFs deliberately tilt portfolios toward particular characteristics. Those tilts can produce periods of significant outperformance or underperformance depending on market leadership.

Going forward, the key issue is whether the factors that produced the five-year performance gap remain in place. Energy prices, technology earnings, valuation levels, interest rates and factor leadership could all change the relative ranking of these ETFs over the next cycle. Vanguard itself notes that past performance does not guarantee future results, making the current comparison more useful as a measure of how different strategies behaved during the previous five years than as a forecast of their next five years.