AVDV vs CALF: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
AVDV and CALF are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. AVDV is Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF, while CALF is Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows ETF. AVDV is broader by holdings count, with 1,747 positions versus 200 for CALF. CALF is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CALF ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 55.
What is the main difference between AVDV and CALF?
AVDV holds 1,747 positions to CALF's 200, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | AVDV | CALF |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.36% | 0.59% |
| Holdings | 1,747 | 200 |
| Top-10 concentration | 6.7% | 20.8% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3.38% | 1.13% |
| Average volume | 791,365 | 552,938 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.8% | +31.6% |
| YTD return | +9.2% | +27.9% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +12.7% | +5.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 17.5% | 16.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.3% | -8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -27.9% | -34.2% |
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 1.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 2.89 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 55/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 26/100 | 64/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 78/100 | 74/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF vs Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows ETF
CALF leads
CALF leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support CALF, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF
Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CALF over AVDV, 63 versus 55 as of Nov 7, 2026. CALF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while AVDV holds the stronger quality profile. CALF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CALF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. CALF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF and Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
AVDV vs CALF: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | AVDV | CALF | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.36% | 0.59% | AVDV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 1,747 | 200 | AVDV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 6.7% | 20.8% | AVDV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3.38% | 1.13% | AVDV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -27.9% | -34.2% | AVDV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 17.5% | 16.3% | CALF |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AVDV and CALF against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum26 vs 64CALF +38
- Quality59 vs 53AVDV +6
- Risk Resilience78 vs 74AVDV +4
- Value65 vs 67Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor CALF. CALF’s edge is concentrated in momentum; AVDV keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CALF's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVDV and CALF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CALF (Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
AVDV (Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | AVDV | CALF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.36% | 0.59% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 1,747 | 200 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 791,365 | 552,938 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.5% | 16.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.3% | -8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 1.57 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.58 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
How much of the same holdings they own
AVDV and CALF share 0.2% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings.
1,709 holdings are unique to AVDV, and 196 holdings are unique to CALF. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
CALF is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 20.83% of the fund, against 6.74% for AVDV (200 holdings vs 1,747). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | AVDV | CALF | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| OVVOvintiv Inc | 0.14% | 1.78% | 0.14% |
| DECDiversified Energy Co | 0.07% | 0.21% | 0.07% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What AVDV adds that CALF doesn’t
| Holding | AVDV | CALF |
|---|---|---|
| ATS.VIAUSTRIA TECHNOLOGIE + SYSTEM COMMON STOCK | 1.19% | Not held |
| SSC GOVERNMENT MM GVMXX | 0.71% | Not held |
| PRU.AXPERSEUS MINING LTD COMMON STOCK | 0.68% | Not held |
| BTO.TOB2GOLD CORP COMMON STOCK | 0.62% | Not held |
| WTB.LWHITBREAD PLC COMMON STOCK GBP.767974 | 0.62% | Not held |
| RRL.AXREGIS RESOURCES LTD COMMON STOCK | 0.6% | Not held |
What CALF adds that AVDV doesn’t
| Holding | CALF | AVDV |
|---|---|---|
| THCTenet Healthcare Corp | 2.76% | Not held |
| EXPEExpedia Group Inc | 2.25% | Not held |
| AUAnglogold Ashanti Plc | 2.2% | Not held |
| EXEExpand Energy Corp | 2% | Not held |
| DINOHF Sinclair Corp | 1.98% | Not held |
| BIIBBiogen Inc | 1.97% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
AVDV vs CALF: five-year payout growth
AVDV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 24.62% a year against CALF's 19.86%. AVDV never reduced its annual distribution in the window; CALF did in 2 years. AVDV: The payout jumped 61.8% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. CALF: The payout jumped 337.3% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. CALF: A single payment in an endpoint year was 3.6x the fund's median payment, so one distribution carries much of the result.
| Dividend metric | AVDV | CALF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 24.62% | 19.86% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.954 | $0.257 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.868 | $0.636 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #21 of 138 | #26 of 138 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CALF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CALF | 55 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 65 vs 67 |
| Technicals | CALF | Price vs 50-day -5.8% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day -2.9% vs 11.6% |
| Risk Resilience | AVDV | Risk Resilience 78 vs 74 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVDV and CALF and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on CALF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6CALF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CALF +8
- 55 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- CALF +10
- 57 vs 67
- 30 sessions ago
- CALF +9
- 58 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- AVDV +3
- 67 vs 64
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when CALF moved ahead of AVDV.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only AVDV
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.36%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CALF
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
CALF leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.5%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.41%, AIQ -1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1AVDV closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to CALF's edge.
- 2AVDV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CALF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
CALF leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AVDV | CALF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.4% | -3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.5% | 3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.5% | 0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.3% | 17.2% |
| Year to date | 9.2% | 27.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.8% | 31.6% |
Technicals
CALF has the stronger structure| Metric | AVDV | CALF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.9 | 52.8 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 33 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.8% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.9% | 11.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 20.7% |
Risk
AVDV is the more resilient| Metric | AVDV | CALF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 1.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 2.89 |
| Max drawdown | -13.3% | -8% |
| Current drawdown | -9.8% | -4.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.5% | 16.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between AVDV and CALF?
AVDV holds 1,747 positions to CALF's 200, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do AVDV and CALF overlap?
AVDV and CALF share 0.2% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings. 1,709 holdings are unique to AVDV, and 196 holdings are unique to CALF. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, AVDV or CALF?
AVDV holds more positions: 1,747 versus 200 for CALF.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
AVDV has the lower expense ratio, 0.36% a year against 0.59% for CALF.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
AVDV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3.38% against 1.13% for CALF.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
AVDV has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.5% annualized against 16.3% for CALF.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
AVDV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -27.9% against -34.2% for CALF.
Compare AVDV and CALF with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.