FIVA vs VYMI: Weighing Two Distinct Paths to International Value

Key Takeaways

• Different paths to international value: FIVA applies a multi-factor value screen across developed-market stocks, while VYMI targets the highest-yielding half of non-U.S. equities in both developed and emerging markets.
• Breadth gap is significant: VYMI holds more than 1,500 securities versus roughly 125 for FIVA, giving VYMI materially lower single-name and concentration risk.
• Cost advantage favors VYMI: VYMI's 0.07% expense ratio is less than half of FIVA's 0.18%, a durable structural edge that compounds over time.
• Different sector DNA: Financials dominate VYMI at over 40% of assets, while FIVA carries a more balanced mix led by financials and industrials in the mid-20% range.
• Income profile differs: VYMI is an income-first fund with a higher dividend yield, whereas FIVA prioritizes cheap valuations and quality factors over yield.
• Tickeron AI Verdict: VYMI. Its lower cost, broader diversification, greater liquidity, and consistent income orientation give it the structural edge in the current environment.

Why These International Value ETFs Are Worth Comparing

International equities have drawn renewed attention as investors seek diversification beyond an increasingly concentrated U.S. market. Within that space, value and dividend strategies offer two distinct ways to capture overseas opportunity. The Fidelity International Value Factor ETF (FIVA) and the Vanguard International High Dividend Yield ETF (VYMI) are not direct competitors; rather, they represent alternative routes to a similar goal: owning attractively priced, cash-generating non-U.S. companies. This comparison examines their structural differences, sector exposure, cost efficiency, and relative positioning so investors can decide which approach better fits a diversified portfolio. I also checked this using Tickeron’s AI Screener to see how the two rank on broader metrics.

A Closer Look at FIVA

FIVA is a passively managed, rules-based fund that tracks the Fidelity International Value Factor Index. The index screens a universe of roughly the 1,000 largest developed-market companies outside the U.S., scoring them on four equally weighted value measures: free cash flow yield, EBITDA to enterprise value, tangible book value to price, and forward price-to-earnings. Roughly 125 high-scoring large- and mid-cap names are selected, with sector and country weights kept near market-like levels and holdings weighted by market capitalization. The index rebalances quarterly. From what I see, this disciplined approach appeals to those seeking a quality-value tilt without venturing into emerging markets.

The portfolio is broad yet concentrated at the top, with the largest position under 3% of assets. Leading holdings include ASML, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Novartis, Toyota, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Shell. Sector exposure is led by financials (roughly 26%), industrials (around 19%), and information technology (about 10%). Geographically, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France anchor the fund. The expense ratio is 0.18%.

Understanding VYMI

VYMI is a passively managed fund tracking the FTSE All-World ex US High Dividend Yield Index. The index ranks non-U.S. companies by their forecast 12-month dividend yield and selects the top half, excluding real estate investment trusts. Constituents are then market-cap weighted, producing a portfolio of more than 1,500 stocks spanning developed and emerging markets. Vanguard uses a sampling technique to replicate the index, and the underlying index uses buffer rules at its annual review to limit turnover. One thing that stands out is how this high-yield focus naturally tilts the fund toward income generation.

Because it selects high-yielding names, VYMI skews heavily toward financials, which represent over 40% of assets. Energy, consumer staples, basic materials, and healthcare each contribute single-digit percentages. Top holdings include HSBC, Roche, Royal Bank of Canada, Shell, Novartis, and BHP Group, with no single name exceeding roughly 2% of the fund. The expense ratio is just 0.07%, following recent fee reductions, and the fund offers a higher dividend yield than FIVA, typically in the mid-single-digit percentage range. I’m watching this closely because the lower fee and scale could matter for long-term compounding.

Market Backdrop and Key Differences

Both funds are shaped by the same macro currents. Elevated global interest rates have supported banks and other financials, which explains the heavy financials weight in VYMI and the sector's prominence in FIVA. Meanwhile, energy and materials exposure in both funds has benefited from firm commodity prices and geopolitical supply disruptions in recent market cycles. Currency is another shared variable: a strengthening or weakening U.S. dollar directly affects returns on non-U.S. assets. The key divergence is geographic scope. VYMI includes emerging markets such as China and Taiwan, adding growth potential but also regulatory and currency risk, while FIVA's developed-market mandate offers a more stable, lower-volatility footprint.

Performance Positioning and Structural Trade-Offs

Over recent months, both funds have participated in a broad international value rally, driven by attractive valuations relative to U.S. equities and resilient earnings from global banks and energy producers. VYMI's heavier financials allocation and its emerging-market sleeve have made it somewhat more sensitive to interest-rate expectations and dollar swings, while FIVA's balanced sector mix and quality-value tilt have provided steadier relative positioning. On a structural basis, VYMI benefits from lower costs and far broader diversification, which tends to reduce idiosyncratic risk. FIVA, by contrast, offers a more deliberate value-and-quality factor tilt and avoids the concentration risk of a 40%-plus financials position. Investors should weigh income generation and cost efficiency against sector concentration and factor purity when choosing between them.

Incorporating AI Tools for Deeper ETF Analysis

In my own research, I frequently use Tickeron’s AI Screener to run side-by-side comparisons of ETFs like these. The tool lets me apply technical patterns, fundamentals, and AI-driven signals across thousands of securities, which helps confirm how factors such as cost and diversification stack up against peers. It has become a practical part of evaluating structural edges without replacing traditional due diligence.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Based on observable structural factors, Tickeron's AI would currently favor VYMI over FIVA. The decisive advantages are cost efficiency — a 0.07% expense ratio versus 0.18% — and breadth of diversification across more than 1,500 holdings, which meaningfully lowers concentration risk. VYMI also offers greater scale, higher liquidity, and a steadier income stream that supports its role as a core international allocation. While FIVA's disciplined value-factor methodology and balanced sector mix are attractive features, its narrower portfolio, higher fee, and developed-market-only mandate tilt the probabilistic edge toward VYMI in the current environment. This assessment reflects structural characteristics, not a prediction of near-term price performance.

Disclaimer

The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer.

Disclaimers and Limitations

Contributor

Scott Bell|Expert

I’m a trader and independent researcher. My interest lies at the intersection of financial markets, algorithms, and capital management. I develop data-driven tools and strategies and study algorithmic approaches to market analysis. I help turn complex market data into clear insights and practical systems. I believe technology should support, not replace, investment thinking

Notable companies

Industry description

Market Cap

High and low price notable news

Volume