📊 AVUV vs VBR vs DFSV · Small-Cap Value ETF Comparison

AVUV vs VBR vs DFSV: Best Small-Cap Value ETF in 2026?

VBR is passive at 0.07%. AVUV actively tilts for value and profitability at 0.25%. DFSV applies Dimensional's deeper factor methodology at 0.30%. The question is whether active factor exposure is worth 18-23 basis points.

VBR: 0.07% · Passive CRSP index AVUV: 0.25% · Active factor tilt DFSV: 0.30% · Dimensional active

AVUV vs VBR vs DFSV: Side-by-Side

AVUV VBR DFSV
Full nameAvantis US Small Cap Value ETFVanguard Small-Cap Value ETFDimensional US Small Cap Value ETF
IssuerAvantisVanguardDimensional Fund Advisors
Expense ratio 0.25% 0.07% 0.30%
AUM$15B$30B$5B
Holdings730840800
ApproachActive factor-basedPassive indexActive factor-based
Value tiltStrong (HML)Moderate (index-defined)Strong (HML + profitability)
Profitability screenYes (RMW)NoYes (RMW)
Inception201920042022
1-year return+11.4%+9.6%+11.8%
5-year return+12.8%+10.9%N/A* (launched 2022)

*DFSV launched in 2022 — insufficient history for 5-year returns. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

The BFF Take

AVUV for factor investors. VBR for passive investors. DFSV for Dimensional believers who want the deepest factor tilt. VBR tracks the CRSP US Small Cap Value Index — a passive, market-cap-weighted index that defines "value" using price-to-book, forward earnings, historical earnings, dividends, and sales ratios. It holds 840 stocks at 0.07%, the cheapest of the three. AVUV applies Fama-French factor research to actively overweight stocks scoring highest on both value (HML factor) and profitability (RMW factor). Its active methodology allows it to rebalance continuously rather than waiting for quarterly index reconstitution. AVUV has outperformed VBR by roughly 2% per year since its 2019 launch. DFSV applies Dimensional's version of the same factor methodology, which is generally considered slightly more aggressive in factor loading than AVUV. DFSV is the newest of the three (2022) and has the least track record as an ETF. The honest summary: VBR is the right choice if you want passive exposure and believe active management does not justify its cost. AVUV or DFSV are the right choices if you specifically believe in active factor investing and are prepared to accept higher fees and active management risk. All three substantially outperform the Russell 2000 over most periods by avoiding unprofitable companies. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Who Each Fund Is Built For

AVUV

Best for

  • Factor investors who want value + profitability tilt
  • Best track record of the three active funds
  • Largest AUM among active factor options
  • Active rebalancing vs quarterly index reconstitution
VBR

Best for

  • Passive investors who want small-cap value exposure
  • Lowest cost at 0.07%
  • Longest track record (since 2004)
  • Vanguard ecosystem investors
DFSV

Best for

  • Investors who prefer Dimensional's factor methodology
  • Deepest factor tilt of the three
  • Factor investors who previously used DFA mutual funds
  • Available without advisor requirement (ETF structure)

Frequently Asked Questions

Is AVUV better than VBR?
AVUV has outperformed VBR since its 2019 launch by roughly 1.5-2% annualized. AVUV's value and profitability screens produce a more concentrated factor tilt than VBR's passive index methodology. But the track record is only 6 years — not long enough to draw definitive conclusions. The academic case for AVUV's methodology is strong and spans decades of research. The counterargument: VBR's 0.07% fee versus AVUV's 0.25% is a real 18 basis point annual advantage that compounds over time, and passive investing has beaten most active management historically. Investors who specifically believe in factor premiums and are comfortable with active management: AVUV. Investors who prefer passive index investing: VBR. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
What is the difference between AVUV and DFSV?
Both AVUV (Avantis) and DFSV (Dimensional Fund Advisors) apply Fama-French factor research to actively select and overweight small-cap value stocks with strong profitability. The methodologies are similar because Dimensional was the original academic factor investing firm (founded with Eugene Fama and Kenneth French involvement), and Avantis was founded by former Dimensional executives. The key differences: DFSV applies a slightly more aggressive factor loading than AVUV; AVUV has more AUM ($15B vs $5B) and a longer ETF track record (2019 vs 2022). For practical purposes, they are close substitutes applying similar factor philosophies.
What is the small-cap value premium and does it still exist?
The small-cap value premium is the historical tendency of small-cap value stocks (cheap by price-to-book and other metrics) to outperform the broader market over long periods. Fama and French documented it across decades of US and international data. The premium has been real: small-cap value beat the S&P 500 by roughly 2-4% annualized from 1926 to 2000. From 2007 to 2020, small-cap value significantly underperformed, leading some researchers to question whether the premium was arbitraged away or was specific to historical conditions. Since 2020, small-cap value has recovered strongly. The academic debate continues, but the existence of a historical premium is not seriously disputed — only whether it persists going forward.
Should I replace VBR with AVUV?
Replacing VBR with AVUV involves a deliberate decision to move from passive to active factor investing and to pay 18 more basis points annually. Do this only if you specifically want a stronger value and profitability factor tilt and believe the factor premium compensates for the higher fee. In a taxable account, selling VBR triggers capital gains tax on any appreciation — consider doing the switch in a tax-advantaged account (IRA) to avoid this. If you are uncertain whether the factor premium will persist, keeping VBR (or a mix of VBR + AVUV) is a reasonable hedge between passive efficiency and factor conviction.

Related Comparisons

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Fund data is approximate. Nothing on ETF BFF is personalized financial advice.