do value stocks outperform growth stocks? A practical guide

This article examines whether do value stocks outperform growth stocks by reviewing definitions, long‑run evidence, recent regime shifts, explanations, methodological issues, regional patterns, and...

2026-01-18 00:51:00

By Crypto Trailblazer

Article rating

4.4

104 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!

Do value stocks outperform growth stocks?

As of 2026-01-22, many investors are asking: do value stocks outperform growth stocks? This guide defines both styles, summarizes decades of academic and practitioner evidence, explains why results differ across periods and regions, and outlines practical implications for investors. You will learn how the "value premium" is measured, why growth surged in recent years, what macro and structural forces matter, and how to apply these insights using investable tools (including Bitget products where appropriate). The phrase "do value stocks outperform growth stocks" appears throughout to keep the focus on the central question and to make the practical comparisons clear.

Quick market snapshot (timely context)

As of 2026-01-22, according to Benzinga, market breadth was mixed: the Russell 2000 hit a new all-time high while major large-cap indices lagged—Nasdaq down 0.66%, S&P 500 down 0.38%, and the Dow down 0.29% for the week. Sector rotation was visible: materials and energy outperformed healthcare, while tech showed softness ahead of earnings season. Select companies in technology and AI infrastructure (e.g., DigitalOcean Holdings) showed strong revenue and breakout technical patterns; cyclical names (e.g., Peabody Energy) benefited from commodity tailwinds; and platform leaders (e.g., Baidu) continued to drive growth narratives with AI initiatives. These dynamics illustrate how sector and market-cap forces can influence whether do value stocks outperform growth stocks over shorter horizons.

Definitions and measurement

What is a value stock?

A "value" stock is typically a company whose market price appears low relative to fundamentals. Common accounting and market proxies are high book-to-market (B/M), low price-to-earnings (P/E), and high earnings or cash-flow yield. These measures reflect either conservative accounting values (book value) or current earnings relative to price (earnings yield). Researchers use them because they are observable, historically persistent, and often correlate with cheaper market valuations relative to fundamentals.

What is a growth stock?

A "growth" stock is a company expected to deliver above-average future earnings or revenue growth. Growth companies usually trade at higher multiples (high P/E, high price-to-sales) because investors price in expected expansion, intangible assets (R&D, network effects), or market dominance. Growth firms often reinvest earnings rather than pay large dividends, and many inhabit technology, consumer discretionary, or platform businesses.

Common factor definitions and indices

Measurement matters. Academics often use Fama–French style constructs such as HML (high minus low book-to-market) to capture the historical value factor. Index providers (Russell, S&P) construct "value" and "growth" style indices by scoring companies across several metrics (sales growth, earnings change, price-to-book, dividend yield) and then assigning style labels. Smart-beta and ETF products may use earnings yield, cash-flow yield, or sector-neutral value constructions. Results differ because a P/B-based sort can favor financials and energy, while P/E or cash-flow adjustments alter sector tilts and exposure to intangible-heavy firms.

Historical empirical evidence

Long-run evidence and the value premium

A large literature shows that over very long horizons (several decades) high book-to-market or "value" stocks have tended to deliver higher average returns than low book-to-market or "growth" stocks. Classic studies tied to the Fama–French framework estimate a multi-percentage point annual premium for value over growth across broad U.S. samples in the 20th century and early 21st century. The premium is not constant year-to-year, but averaged over long spans it is statistically meaningful in many datasets.

Secular regimes and rolling horizons

However, empirical work also highlights long secular regimes. There have been extended periods when value dominated (for example, parts of the late 20th century) and extended periods when growth dominated (notably much of the 2010s and into the 2020s). Practitioners at Dimensional and T. Rowe Price emphasize that value performance is episodic—strong over long horizons but punctuated by lengthy stretches of underperformance. Vanguard and Goldman Sachs analyses note that findings are sensitive to the choice of start and end dates: short or medium windows can show very different answers to do value stocks outperform growth stocks.

Recent performance (2010s–2020s)

From roughly 2010 through the late 2010s and into the early 2020s, growth stocks—especially large-cap technology leaders—strongly outperformed. This period saw valuation spreads widen dramatically between high-growth platform companies and traditional value sectors. The mid‑2007–2020 window and the 2010s growth surge shifted many investors' perceptions, prompting headlines that asked if value was "dead." Research Affiliates and Dimensional pushed back, showing that measurement choices, sector composition, and the rise of intangible capital affected how we observe the premium. More recently, partial reversals (in some years) and sector rotations illustrate that the trend is not monotonic.

Explanations for the value premium and recent trends

Risk-based explanations

One canonical explanation is that value stocks are riskier in certain economic states—cyclical firms, firms with weaker balance sheets, or those more exposed to economic downturns. If value stocks underperform in bad states (higher default or distress risk), investors require higher expected returns as compensation. In that framing, the value premium is a risk premium, akin to compensation for exposure to adverse macro outcomes.

Behavioral and market-inefficiency explanations

Behavioral theories argue that the premium arises from investor biases: overreaction to good news for glamour/growth names, underreaction to negative news for cheap names, or preference for lottery-like payoffs. These mispricings can persist until fundamentals catch up, allowing cheaper securities to subsequently outperform.

Changing fundamentals and measurement issues

A major practical issue is measurement: book value and traditional accounting metrics understate intangible assets such as software, R&D, platform network value, and human capital. Research Affiliates and Vanguard highlight that in an economy where intangible investment is central, plain book-to-market and P/B-based value measures can systematically misclassify innovative firms as "growth" or mislabel firms with low reported book value as expensive. This leads to part of the apparent underperformance of value in recent decades being a measurement artifact.

Macro drivers (inflation, rates, earnings growth)

Macro variables matter. Historically, rising real rates and higher inflation have tended to favor value—because growth valuations (discounted far into the future) are more sensitive to lower discount rates and easier monetary conditions. Conversely, very low real rates and strong productivity-driven earnings growth can favor growth. Analyses by Vanguard and T. Rowe Price show how the path of inflation, real yields, and the term structure modulate relative returns.

Sector composition and technological shifts

Sector concentration can amplify style moves. Growth leadership concentrated in a handful of mega-cap tech firms (the so-called "Magnificent Seven" in recent cycles) was enough to lift growth indexes dramatically. Conversely, value indexes can be concentrated in financials, energy, and industrials. When one sector leads for structural reasons (AI adoption, commodity cycles), it can dominate style returns, making the broader question of do value stocks outperform growth stocks sensitive to sector dynamics.

Methodological considerations and controversies

Choice of style metric and rebalancing frequency

Different metrics (P/B, P/E, earnings yield, cash-flow yield) and differing reconstitution/rebalancing schedules generate different historical pictures. A strict book-to-market sort picks up firms with old asset bases and tends to favor financials and industrials; earnings-yield sorts pick different cohorts. Monthly rebalances vs. annual reconstitution and weighting schemes (equal vs. cap-weighted) further affect observed premiums.

Survivorship bias, transaction costs, and implementability

Academic long–short factor portfolios (e.g., buying high B/M and shorting low B/M) often show larger premiums than investable long‑only versions available to typical investors. Transaction costs, taxes, shorting costs, and turnover can reduce realized returns. Practitioners note that long-only value ETFs or portfolios will not mechanically replicate academic results, especially when factoring fees and slippage.

Is "value" dead?

Headlines periodically claim value is "dead." Research Affiliates, Dimensional, and Vanguard provide counterarguments: measurement problems, changing accounting for intangibles, and long but predictable drawdowns do not imply the factor is gone. Instead, they argue that value's expected return may be persistent but uneven. Empirical re-examinations that adjust for intangible capital or use broader cash-flow measures often find a renewed, though sometimes reduced, premium.

Cross-sectional and regional evidence

US vs. international and emerging markets

The magnitude and persistence of the value premium vary by region. In some international and emerging markets, value premia have been historically larger; in others, local sector structures and governance differences alter outcomes. Country risk, currency shifts, and institutional ownership patterns can change the realized premium. Investors should not assume U.S. results automatically apply elsewhere.

Size and sector interactions

Value interacts with size: small-cap value historically delivered different returns than large-cap value. Small value often had higher average returns but also higher volatility and trading costs. Sector concentration is again key: small-cap value may include many cyclical or financially stressed firms, while large-cap value includes established industrial or financial leaders.

Implications for investors and portfolio construction

How investors implement value exposure

Investors can access value exposure via ETFs and mutual funds that track value indices, factor ETFs that target value metrics, strategic multi-factor funds, or active value managers. Bitget provides tools and products for factor-aware allocations—investors should check Bitget’s listings and educational materials for value-style ETFs and multi-factor strategies. Remember: product construction (which metric, sector neutrality, rebalancing rules) materially affects exposure.

Tactical vs. strategic tilt

Should investors time value vs. growth? Many professional managers and institutions caution against frequent timing. Vanguard and T. Rowe Price suggest that strategic tilts to harvest factor premia—combined with diversification and long time horizons—are more reliable than tactical calls. That said, tactical overlays based on macro or valuation signals are used by some sophisticated investors but require skill, risk controls, and clear rules.

Risk management and diversification

Because value can be cyclical and concentrated in certain sectors, pairing value with other factors (momentum, quality, low volatility) or rotating between value and growth depending on macro regimes can reduce drawdowns. Sector controls and cap‑control constraints can also limit unwanted concentration risks.

Practical considerations and performance expectations

Time horizon and patience

Historical evidence indicates that value outperformance tends to materialize over long horizons and through episodic recoveries. Investors choosing value exposure should expect long stretches of relative underperformance and should align exposure with sufficiently long horizons and risk tolerance.

Taxes, turnover and fees

Value and active value strategies often involve higher turnover, which can create tax inefficiencies in taxable accounts. ETFs and tax‑efficient wrappers mitigate some effects, but investors should explicitly account for fees and turnover when estimating expected net outcomes.

When value may outperform going forward

Historically, value has tended to do better when real interest rates rise, inflation expectations normalize, economic recoveries favor cyclical earnings, and when valuation spreads compress via mean reversion. Managers at Vanguard and T. Rowe Price argue that a gradual normalization of rates or improved cyclical outlook could tilt odds back toward value over medium terms. None of this is guaranteed—these are historical associations, not deterministic rules.

Methodological checklist investors should use

Clarify which value metric (P/B, earnings yield, cash-flow yield) a product uses.
Review sector weights and whether the strategy is sector-neutral.
Check rebalancing frequency and historical turnover.
Evaluate long‑only implementations versus academic long‑short factor results.
Quantify fees, expected turnover, and tax considerations.

Cross-check: what recent market behavior tells us

Recent market dynamics (as of 2026-01-22) show active sector rotation and sensitivity to macro policy: tech and AI narratives lift growth, while commodity and cyclical strength lift traditional value sectors. This mixed picture underscores the article’s core point: answers to do value stocks outperform growth stocks often depend on the time window and the macro-state. Short windows dominated by a handful of mega-cap growth winners can show strong growth outperformance; broader windows that include economic re-pricing can favor value.

Summary of the evidence and consensus view

In short: historically and over very long horizons, research finds evidence that value has outperformed growth on average. But the premium is episodic, sensitive to measurement, sector composition, macro conditions, and accounting for intangibles. Recent decades featured an extended growth run driven by platform effects and low real rates, which shifted outcomes and sparked debate about the persistence of value. Most balanced institutional views (Dimensional, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, Research Affiliates) land on a nuanced conclusion: value is not "dead," but capturing the premium in practice requires careful implementation, patience, and attention to measurement.