AVDV vs USMV ETF Comparison
Compare AVDV and USMV across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between AVDV and USMV?
AVDV is Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF, while USMV is iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF. AVDV is tied to Equity; USMV is tied to Equity. AVDV is broader by holdings count, with 1,697 positions versus 173 for USMV. USMV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | AVDV | USMV | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.36% | 0.15% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $20.4B | $24.1B | Fund |
| Holdings | 1,697 | 173 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 10.9% | 27.8% | Fund |
| Average volume | 585,836 | 3,125,424 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 17.1% | 8.6% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -13.3% | -6.8% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.33 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.54 | 0.51 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 2.24 | 0.82 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 67/100 | 70/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 10/10 | 10/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 73/100 | 66/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 73/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF vs iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
USMV leads
USMV leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 0 of 3 evidence groups support USMV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USMV over AVDV, 70 versus 67 as of Sep 5, 2026. USMV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while AVDV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. USMV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USMV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. USMV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare AVDV and USMV 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.
- Quality30%60 vs 72USMV +12
- Risk Resilience15%84 vs 73AVDV +11
- Momentum25%73 vs 66AVDV +7
0 of 3 evidence groups favor USMV. USMV’s edge is concentrated in quality; AVDV keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No new signals fired.
USMV's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVDV and USMV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
USMV (iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
AVDV (Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, technicals.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
USMVUSMV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
AVDVAVDV on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
AVDVAVDV on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | USMV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.36% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $20.4B | $24.1B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 1,715 | 173 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 585,836 | 3,125,424 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 17.1% | 8.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -13.3% | -6.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.54 | 0.51 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.33 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
AVDV and USMV share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
USMV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 27.76% of the fund, against 10.92% for AVDV (173 holdings vs 1697). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
1697 holdings are unique to AVDV and 173 to USMV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, AVDV or USMV?
AVDV currently has more reported holdings, with 1,697 positions versus 173.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
USMV has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
AVDV has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
USMV has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
USMV currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 70 to 67.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USMV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 67 vs 70 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | AVDV | Price vs 50-day 6.2% vs 1.9%; vs 200-day 10.2% vs 6.3% |
| Risk Resilience | AVDV | Risk Resilience 84 vs 73 |
| 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 USMV 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 3 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 USMV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3USMV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- USMV +3
- 67 vs 70
- 7 sessions ago
- USMV +3
- 68 vs 71
- 30 sessions ago
- USMV +5
- 69 vs 74
- 90 sessions ago
- USMV +11
- 59 vs 70
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jul 24 when USMV 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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.86%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.24%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
USMV 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 +0.07%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.99%, AIQ +3 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 Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to USMV's edge.
- 2AVDV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3USMV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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.
Technicals
AVDV has the stronger structure| Metric | AVDV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.1 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 29.4 | 27.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.2% | 1.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.2% | 6.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.2% | 7% |
Risk
AVDV is the more resilient| Metric | AVDV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.54 | 0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.24 | 0.82 |
| Max drawdown | -13.3% | -6.8% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -0.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.1% | 8.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -0.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVDV or USMV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, USMV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 70 against AVDV's 67. The edge comes from quality. AVDV is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is AVDV or USMV the better buy right now?
USMV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor USMV over AVDV?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. USMV leads Quality by 12 points; AVDV leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; AVDV leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, AVDV or USMV?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, AVDV or USMV?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, AVDV or USMV?
AVDV on the Momentum factor, by 7 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, AVDV or USMV?
AVDV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AVDV on Risk Resilience, by 11 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AVDV more profitable than USMV?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is USMV's lead over AVDV getting stronger or weaker?
USMV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-24, when USMV moved ahead of AVDV.
What would change the AVDV vs USMV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AVDV closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to USMV's edge; AVDV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; USMV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AVDV and USMV?
AVDV: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. USMV: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on AVDV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On USMV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AVDV and USMV with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.