are value stocks less volatile? A practical guide

This article answers the question “are value stocks less volatile” by defining value stocks and volatility, reviewing theory, summarizing empirical findings (academic and practitioner), outlining m...

2025-12-25 16:00:00

By Emma Shah

Article rating

4.6

109 ratings

Bitget offers a variety of ways to buy or sell popular cryptocurrencies. Buy now!

A welcome pack worth 6200 USDT for new users! Sign up now!

Introduction

The question “are value stocks less volatile” is common among investors trying to balance return potential with risk. In this guide you will find clear definitions of value stocks and volatility, theoretical arguments for and against lower volatility in value names, summaries of academic and industry evidence, measurement pitfalls, practical portfolio implications, and concrete checklists to help decide whether and when value exposure may reduce portfolio volatility. The phrase are value stocks less volatile will appear throughout this guide as we compare styles, metrics, and historical episodes.

Definitions and concepts

What are value stocks?

Value stocks are equities that appear inexpensive by common valuation measures: low price-to-earnings (P/E), low price-to-book (P/B), low price-to-sales (P/S), or high dividend yield relative to peers. Value classifications can be applied at the stock level (screening low P/E names) or at the index level (Russell and MSCI value indices, Morningstar style boxes). Practitioners also form value portfolios by ranking firms on accounting-based metrics (book-to-market), cash-flow measures, or composite multi-metric scores. Value firms are often mature, capital-returning businesses (banks, energy, consumer staples, industrials) though value can appear across market-cap ranges.

What is volatility?

Volatility is a statistical measure of dispersion of returns. Common metrics include:

Standard deviation of returns (realized volatility) over chosen windows (daily, monthly, annualized).
Variance (the square of standard deviation).
Beta (systematic sensitivity to a market index).
Implied volatility (derived from option prices, forward-looking).
Maximum drawdown (largest peak-to-trough loss over a period).
Realized intraday or historical volatility measures (e.g., rolling 30-day vol).

Volatility quantifies price movement magnitude, not direction, and is one dimension of risk. Investors often conflate lower volatility with lower risk; this article explains why that is not always correct.

Theoretical reasons value stocks might be less volatile

Business characteristics and fundamentals

Steadier cash flows: Value stocks often represent mature businesses with more predictable earnings and cash flows than early-stage growth firms. Predictable fundamentals can reduce surprise-driven price swings.
Scale and diversification: Many value firms are large-cap incumbents with diversified revenue streams and balance-sheet buffers, which can blunt idiosyncratic shocks.

Dividends and income component

Downside support: Dividends provide recurring cash returns that smooth total-return volatility vs. price-only series. High yield can reduce observed total-return volatility because income cushions price declines.
Investor base: Income-focused investors (pension funds, income funds) may buy dividend-paying value stocks for cash flow, improving trading depth and price stability.

Sector and composition effects

Sector mix matters: Value indices often overweight financials, energy, materials and underweight high-growth technology. Sector composition affects volatility because defensive sectors can be less volatile in some regimes (e.g., consumer staples), while cyclical sectors can be more volatile in others. Thus observed volatility differences partly reflect sector exposure, not pure valuation style.

Theoretical reasons value stocks might not be less volatile

Value traps and idiosyncratic risk

Cheap for a reason: Stocks trading at low multiples may be priced that way due to deteriorating fundamentals, structural decline, or governance issues. Such firms can suffer deeper drawdowns and longer recoveries—raising realized volatility.

Cyclicality and macro sensitivity

Business-cycle sensitivity: Many typical value sectors (energy, industrials, financials) are cyclical. In recessions or commodity shocks they can see outsized swings in earnings and share prices, increasing volatility compared with defensive growth franchises.

Style rotations and sudden repricing

Market regime switches: Rapid shifts between “growth” and “value” leadership (style rotations) can produce abrupt repricing. Value portfolios often get punished during accelerated growth rallies (large-cap tech runs), then rewarded in reversals—producing clustered volatility.

Empirical evidence and historical performance

Long-run vs short-run findings

Horizon dependence: Empirical findings depend heavily on the time horizon. Over multi-decade horizons, many studies document a long-term value premium in average returns. Short- and medium-term horizons show long stretches where value underperforms growth and episodes where value volatility spikes.
Volatility vs returns trade-off: Historically, value’s higher average returns have not consistently come with proportionally higher realized volatility. In some samples value has similar or even lower realized volatility than growth; in others, especially during crises affecting cyclical sectors, value is more volatile.

Key academic studies

Fama & French: Foundational papers decompose returns into market, size, value factors and show value’s return contributions. Their research emphasizes that value’s return characteristics are driven by systematic factor exposure rather than consistently lower volatility. The classic Fama & French factor research and subsequent updates provide decomposition frameworks used in many volatility studies.
Related literature: Studies analyzing risk decomposition show that value portfolios often have different exposures to macro factors (e.g., inflation, real rates, growth), which affects volatility across regimes. Some academic work finds value’s idiosyncratic volatility can be higher due to distressed or distressed-like firms entering the value bucket.

Industry and asset-manager analyses

Vanguard and Avantis/American Century: Asset managers typically note that are value stocks less volatile depends on definitions and time frames. Vanguard’s research highlights that value vs growth volatility varies with cycle and index construction. Avantis/American Century analyses discuss how quality overlays—selecting cheap but financially healthy firms—can deliver value exposure with lower realized volatility than naive value screens.
Practitioners’ view: Firms like Fidelity, SoFi, and Investopedia provide investor-friendly summaries: value can lower portfolio volatility if implemented thoughtfully (e.g., with quality screens and diversification), but basic value screens can concentrate risk and increase volatility in downturns.

Evidence from crises and regime changes

Dot-com bust (2000–2002): Growth-heavy tech stocks experienced extreme drawdowns; value allocations performed comparatively better, showing lower downside volatility in that episode.
Global financial crisis (2008): Many financials—typically value—suffered severe losses; in 2008, certain value segments were more volatile than growth, showing the cyclicality caveat.
COVID-19 shock (2020): Growth stocks (especially tech) outperformed rapidly as markets priced technology-driven survivability, while many value cyclicals plunged, demonstrating that volatility outcomes flip across crises.
Recent rotations (2023–2025): Periodic rotations between growth and value created sharp short-term volatility for both styles depending on macro and policy drivers.

Measurement issues and methodological considerations

Choice of index and style definitions

Different definitions, different results: Russell 1000 Value vs Russell 1000 Growth, MSCI Value vs Growth, or factor-sorted portfolios (top decile/book-to-market) produce different volatility comparisons because of construction rules, rebalancing frequency, and eligibility filters.
Quality and composite factors: Adding quality (low leverage, stable earnings) to value screens often reduces realized volatility vs raw value portfolios.

Volatility metrics and time windows

Metric selection matters: Daily vs monthly returns produce different standard deviation estimates. Implied volatility (options market) captures expected future swings, whereas historical realized volatility describes what happened. Max drawdown captures tail risk not shown by standard deviation.
Horizon choice: Short windows (weeks, months) are noisy; longer windows (5–10 years) smooth episodes but may mask regime-specific behavior.

Risk-adjusted returns vs raw volatility

Sharpe and Sortino ratios: Comparing risk-adjusted outcomes is often more informative than raw volatility. A strategy with slightly higher volatility but much higher average returns can have a superior Sharpe ratio.
Correlation effects: Lower correlation between value and other portfolio assets can reduce portfolio volatility even if value’s standalone volatility is not lower.

Practical implications for investors

Portfolio construction and diversification

Allocation effects: Adding value exposure to a diversified portfolio may lower portfolio volatility through diversification and rebalancing benefits if the value exposure has low or negative correlation with existing holdings.
Rebalancing: Systematic rebalancing (selling appreciated assets, buying laggards) can capture contrarian aspects of value strategies but may temporarily increase realized volatility during style rotations.

Use of ETFs, mutual funds, and factor strategies

Implementation choices: Investors can gain value exposure via index ETFs (Russell/MSCI value ETFs), active value mutual funds, or factor-tilt strategies (value + quality). ETFs provide low-cost, transparent exposure; active funds may add value through security selection and risk controls.
For investors trading equities and crypto side-by-side, Bitget provides trading and custody services for crypto and tokenized assets; consider Bitget Wallet for secure custody when managing cross-asset strategies.

Time horizon, tolerance and rebalancing

Long-term perspective: Value exposures historically benefit patient investors who can endure style cycles and maintain allocations through drawdowns.
Risk tolerance: Assess personal drawdown tolerance—value drawdowns can be deep and prolonged in some cycles.

When value is less volatile — typical scenarios

Mean-reversion phases: After prolonged growth outperformance, mean reversion toward fundamentals can favor value, producing steadier returns and lower realized volatility for value relative to overheated growth.
Rising real rates with stable earnings: If rising rates reflect stronger real economic activity and value firms’ earnings respond positively, value can show lower volatility than fragile growth names dependent on cheap capital.
Defensive environments favoring dividends: Environments where income is prized (e.g., low-return regimes) can support dividend-paying value names and moderate volatility.

When value can be more volatile — typical scenarios

Deep recessions or demand shocks: Sharp downturns hit cyclical value sectors (energy, industrials) harder, increasing volatility and large drawdowns.
Structural declines: When an industry faces secular decline (e.g., legacy technologies), cheap valuations can mask persistent deterioration, causing volatile recoveries.
Rapid risk-off moves and liquidity stress: In episodes of market flight to quality, value can be sold indiscriminately, spiking volatility.

Case studies and illustrative examples

Historical examples (selected periods)

Dot-com bust (2000–2002): Growth-heavy indices collapsed, giving value allocations relative stability. This episode is often cited by proponents who say are value stocks less volatile across severe growth drawdowns.
Global financial crisis (2008): Many large financials and cyclical value names fell drastically, producing high volatility for value-dominated portfolios.
2020 pandemic shock: The initial plunge punished cyclicals; growth recovered faster. Value suffered larger short-term volatility and prolonged underperformance.
2023–2025 style rotations: Rapid shifts between AI-driven growth rallies and rotation into transition/industrial/value names created short-run volatility for both styles.

Index and ETF comparisons

Practical checks readers can run: Compare realized volatility (annualized standard deviation of monthly returns) for Russell 1000 Value vs Russell 1000 Growth over differing windows (5y, 10y, 20y). Compare max drawdown, beta to the S&P 500, and Sharpe ratio to capture risk-return trade-offs.
Example approach: Use total-return series (including dividends) to compare volatility meaningfully between value and growth.

Integrating recent market events as volatility examples

Canaan and crypto-hardware volatility (as market illustration): As of April 2025, according to Decrypt, Bitcoin-miner manufacturer Canaan Inc. received a Nasdaq deficiency notice after sustained sub-$1 share prices and faced a compliance deadline in mid-2025. This example highlights how sector-specific drivers (Bitcoin price, energy costs, hardware cycles) create exceptional idiosyncratic volatility for firms tied to a volatile underlying asset class. The Canaan case shows that value-like cheapness (if present) in small-cap, cyclical, or industry-exposed companies can coincide with elevated volatility and delisting risk.
Commodity and precious metals moves: As of April 10, 2025, spot silver briefly pierced $90 per ounce, with a reported settlement near $89.56, demonstrating that commodity shocks and flights to real assets can produce cross-market volatility spikes that affect resource and industrial value stocks. [Source: market reports, April 10, 2025]
Tech-led rotations and macro headlines: Episodes of rapid rotation between technology-led rallies and shifts into infrastructure/transition plays in 2024–2025 created quick swings in both growth and value volatility measures. Institutional flow shifts amplify style volatility.

Academic debates and open questions

Existence and persistence of the value premium

Ongoing debate: Academics debate whether value’s historical premium is a compensation for risk or a behavioral anomaly. The persistence and future magnitude of any premium remain open questions and affect expectations about relative volatility and returns.

Impact of intangible assets and factor construction

Book value adjustments: Modern economies emphasize intangible capital (software, brands). Traditional book-to-market screens may misclassify firms with large intangibles, affecting measured value characteristics and their volatility. Adjusting for intangibles or using cash-flow-based measures alters the composition and risk profile of value portfolios.

Limitations, caveats and common misconceptions

“Value = low risk” is false as a blanket statement: Value can be less volatile in some regimes but more volatile in others. Volatility is only one dimension of risk—firm-specific fundamentals, liquidity, and downside tail risk matter.
Beware headline indexing: Comparing indices without accounting for sector exposures, rebalancing, and dividend treatment yields misleading conclusions.

Practical checklist for investors

Use this checklist to evaluate whether value exposure may reduce portfolio volatility for you:

Define value precisely: Which metric or index will you use (P/E, P/B, composite)?
Check sector exposures: Will the value allocation concentrate cyclicals or distressed sectors?
Assess quality overlay: Consider requiring minimum profitability, balance-sheet strength, or earnings stability to reduce idiosyncratic risk.
Choose the metric: Compare realized volatility, max drawdown, and risk-adjusted returns (Sharpe/Sortino) over multiple windows.
Evaluate correlation: Will value reduce overall portfolio volatility through low correlation with your existing holdings?
Time horizon and discipline: Are you prepared to hold through style cycles and apply systematic rebalancing?
Implementation costs: Consider ETF tracking error, fund fees, and trading costs.
Monitor regime indicators: Keep an eye on macro drivers—rates, commodity cycles, and liquidity—that influence value/growth dynamics.

References and further reading

Key sources used in preparing this guide (select examples):

Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French. Research on value and growth decomposition (various SSRN / academic papers).
Vanguard research notes on value vs growth and factor construction.
Avantis / American Century white papers: How value performs in volatile markets.
Fidelity investor guides: What are value stocks?
Investopedia, SoFi, Trading212 educational pieces on value vs growth.
Market reports: Decrypt (Canaan Nasdaq notice, April 2025), market reporting on silver (April 10, 2025) and rotation headlines (2023–2025).