AVUV vs SPY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
AVUV and SPY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. AVUV is Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF, while SPY is State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF. AVUV is broader by holdings count, with 798 positions versus 505 for SPY. SPY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has AVUV ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 56.
| Metric | AVUV | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.09% |
| Holdings | 798 | 505 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.27% | 1.03% |
| Average volume | 1,309,567 | 44,337,691 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +22.4% | +8.5% |
| YTD return | +17.4% | +7.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +9.2% | +10.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.2% | 13.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.5% | -9.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -28.8% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 0.71 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.21 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.02 | 0.63 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 56/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 48/100 | 24/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
AVUV leads
AVUV leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from SPY.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support AVUV, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AVUV over SPY, 62 versus 56 as of Nov 7, 2026. AVUV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while SPY holds the stronger quality profile. AVUV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AVUV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. AVUV lead: Reversed — SPY led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AVUV now leads by 6.
Compare Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
AVUV vs SPY: 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 | AVUV | SPY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.25% | 0.09% | SPY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 798 | 505 | AVUV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.27% | 1.03% | AVUV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -28.8% | -24.5% | SPY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.2% | 13.6% | SPY |
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 AVUV and SPY 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.
- Value67 vs 43AVUV +24
- Momentum48 vs 24AVUV +24
- Quality62 vs 84SPY +22
- Risk Resilience77 vs 77Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor AVUV. AVUV’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; SPY 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
AVUV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVUV and SPY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AVUV (Avantis U.S. Small Cap Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
SPY (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
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 | AVUV | SPY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.09% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 798 | 505 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,309,567 | 44,337,691 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.2% | 13.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.5% | -9.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.21 | 0.46 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.71 | 1.00 | 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.
AVUV vs SPY: five-year payout growth
AVUV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 18.64% a year against SPY's 5.05%. Neither fund reduced its annual distribution in any year of the window.
| Dividend metric | AVUV | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 18.64% | 5.05% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.686 | $5.691 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.612 | $7.281 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #29 of 138 | #95 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 AVUV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AVUV | 62 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | AVUV | Value 67 vs 43 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs -4%; vs 200-day 0.5% vs 0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 77 vs 77 |
| 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 AVUV and SPY 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 6 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 AVUV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6AVUV lead: Reversed — SPY led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AVUV now leads by 6.
- Today
- AVUV +6
- 62 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- AVUV +11
- 70 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- SPY +2
- 64 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- AVUV +1
- 65 vs 64
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when AVUV moved ahead of SPY.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AVUV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SPY
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.43%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
AVUV 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.7%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.31%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1SPY closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVUV's edge.
- 2SPY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3AVUV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
AVUV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AVUV | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.1% | -5.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.2% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.2% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | 17.4% | 7.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.4% | 8.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AVUV | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.1 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 18 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.5% | 0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.1% | 19.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AVUV | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.21 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.02 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -8.5% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -7% | -5.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.2% | 13.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, AVUV or SPY?
AVUV holds more positions: 798 versus 505 for SPY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPY has the lower expense ratio, 0.09% a year against 0.25% for AVUV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
AVUV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.27% against 1.03% for SPY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
AVUV has been more volatile over the past year, at 15.2% annualized against 13.6% for SPY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPY fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -24.5% against -28.8% for AVUV.
Compare AVUV and SPY 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.