Vietnam's ETF board closed the 20/10/2026 session with ₫22.75tn of assets spread across 24 HOSE-listed funds, and two products dominate it: E1VFVN30 at ₫5,724bn and FUEVFVND at ₫10,475bn — together ₫16.2tn, or 71% of the entire market. The tape was quietly positive: VN-INDEX +0.13% to 1,691.97, VN30-INDEX +0.34% to 1,845.51, breadth of 9 gainers / 7 losers / 8 unchanged, and ₫11.41bn of net foreign buying across the whole ETF board (buy ₫33.42bn, sell ₫22.01bn). The aggregate number, however, hides the actual story — and the actual story is a widening split between two strategies that are no longer behaving the same way. What follows is our recurring so sánh ETF VN30 và VN Diamond: a session-by-session comparison of flows, AUM, turnover and tracking error between the VN30-tracking and Diamond-tracking flagships.
Key Takeaways — so sánh ETF VN30 và VN Diamond, 20/10/2026
- Flow concentration: E1VFVN30 (+₫9.77bn) and FUEVFVND (+₫5.76bn) pulled ₫15.53bn of net foreign money between them on 20/10 — more than the entire board's ₫11.41bn — while FUESSVFL bled ₫3.81bn. Strip out the two flagships and the other 22 funds were net sellers of roughly ₫4.1bn.
- The AUM/turnover mismatch: FUEVFVND is 1.83x the size of E1VFVN30, yet on 20/10 both traded almost identical value (₫20.4bn vs ₫20.6bn). That means E1VFVN30 turned over 0.36% of its AUM against just 0.19% for FUEVFVND — the small fund is the more actively traded one relative to its size.
- Tracking-error verdict: VN Diamond carries the higher structural tracking error (top-5 holdings = 60.7% of the basket vs 46.1% for VN30, plus foreign-ownership-limit mechanics), while E1VFVN30 carries the higher single-session pricing noise — its close sat 1.07% above its own session VWAP, versus 0.20% for FUEVFVND. For anyone running a so sánh ETF VN30 và VN Diamond to size an allocation, that is the trade-off in one line: concentration risk lives in FUEVFVND, execution noise lives in E1VFVN30.
1. So sánh ETF VN30 và VN Diamond: where the money actually went on 20/10/2026
The foreign-flow split: two funds, one market
The headline is ₫11.41bn of net foreign buying across all 24 HOSE ETFs. The detail is far more interesting. E1VFVN30 alone took ₫9.77bn and FUEVFVND took ₫5.76bn — a combined ₫15.53bn, or 136% of the board's net figure. The arithmetic only works because money was leaving elsewhere: FUESSVFL recorded −₫3.81bn, FUEVN100 −₫0.68bn, FUEMAV30 −₫0.15bn, with FUESSV30, FUESSV50 and FUEDCMID each marginally negative.
Read that as a rotation within the ETF wrapper rather than fresh money entering it. The financials sleeve (VNFinLead) lost foreign capital on a day when the broad VN30 and Diamond baskets both gained, and FUEKIV30 picked up a token +₫0.59bn. In other words: October 2026 flows are consolidating into the two flagship, high-liquidity, index-defining products, and the satellite funds are being funded from. On the flow side, that single sentence is the whole so sánh ETF VN30 và VN Diamond in miniature — both flagships are absorbing money at the expense of everything else on the board.
AUM vs turnover: the liquidity mismatch nobody prices
E1VFVN30 printed 624,900 units at a VWAP of ₫32,928 (a ₫20.58bn notional), while FUEVFVND printed 631,800 units at a VWAP of ₫32,346 (₫20.43bn). The two funds traded essentially the same cash value — ₫41.01bn combined, or 79.5% of the board's entire ₫51.60bn turnover — despite FUEVFVND being 1.83x the larger fund by assets. That mismatch is the part of the so sánh ETF VN30 và VN Diamond that most flow reports skip: turnover relative to AUM, not turnover in absolute dong, is what tells you which fund is actually being repriced by active money.