DVY vs EFAD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DVY and EFAD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DVY is iShares Select Dividend ETF, while EFAD is ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF. DVY is broader by holdings count, with 102 positions versus 77 for EFAD. DVY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has DVY ahead on AIQ Score, 65 versus 56.
| Metric | DVY | EFAD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.38% | 0.5% |
| Holdings | 102 | 77 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 3.31% | 2.45% |
| Average volume | 371,310 | 3,164 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +14.1% | +7.4% |
| YTD return | +14.3% | +8.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10% | +1.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.6% | 13.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -10.3% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -17.5% | -34% |
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.87 | 0.32 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.56 | 0.51 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 65/100 | 56/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 82/100 | 79/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 69/100 | 83/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
iShares Select Dividend ETF vs ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF
DVY leads
DVY leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support DVY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
iShares Select Dividend ETF
ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DVY over EFAD, 65 versus 56 as of Oct 24, 2026. DVY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while EFAD holds the stronger risk resilience profile. DVY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor DVY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. DVY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare iShares Select Dividend ETF and ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DVY vs EFAD: 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 | DVY | EFAD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.38% | 0.5% | DVY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 102 | 77 | DVY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 3.31% | 2.45% | DVY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -17.5% | -34% | DVY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.6% | 13.8% | DVY |
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 DVY and EFAD 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.
- Quality56 vs 30DVY +26
- Risk Resilience69 vs 83EFAD +14
- Value58 vs 49DVY +9
- Momentum82 vs 79Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor DVY. DVY’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; EFAD keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Value -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 9 active signals are unchanged.
DVY's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DVY and EFAD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DVY (iShares Select Dividend ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
EFAD (ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
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 | DVY | EFAD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.38% | 0.5% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 102 | 77 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 371,310 | 3,164 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.6% | 13.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -10.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.87 | 0.32 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.71 | 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.
DVY vs EFAD: five-year payout growth
EFAD grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 12.67% a year against DVY's 7.87%. DVY never reduced its annual distribution in the window; EFAD did in 1 year. EFAD: The 2020 payout was 21.9% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. EFAD: The payout jumped 110.0% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | DVY | EFAD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.87% | 12.67% |
| 2020 annual payout | $3.523 | $0.651 |
| 2025 annual payout | $5.145 | $1.182 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #9 of 33 | #3 of 33 |
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 DVY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DVY | 65 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | DVY | Value 58 vs 49 |
| Technicals | EFAD | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs 3.3%; vs 200-day 3.5% vs 6.1% |
| Risk Resilience | EFAD | Risk Resilience 69 vs 83 |
| 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 DVY and EFAD 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 9 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 DVY.
How the comparison changed
96 daily snapshots · Jun 24 – Oct 23DVY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DVY +9
- 65 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- DVY +7
- 61 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- DVY +6
- 52 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- DVY +8
- 61 vs 53
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only EFAD
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 8 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
DVY 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 -0.91%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.3%, 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.
- 1EFAD closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to DVY's edge.
- 2EFAD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3DVY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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
EFAD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | DVY | EFAD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.2% | 4.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.2% | 5.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.2% | 6.7% |
| Year to date | 14.3% | 8.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.1% | 7.4% |
Technicals
EFAD has the stronger structure| Metric | DVY | EFAD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72 | 89.2 |
| ADX (14) | 26.4 | 22.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | 3.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.5% | 6.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.7% | 10.5% |
Risk
EFAD is the more resilient| Metric | DVY | EFAD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.87 | 0.32 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.56 | 0.51 |
| Max drawdown | -8.1% | -10.3% |
| Current drawdown | -2.6% | -0.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.6% | 13.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, DVY or EFAD?
DVY holds more positions: 102 versus 77 for EFAD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
DVY has the lower expense ratio, 0.38% a year against 0.5% for EFAD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
DVY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3.31% against 2.45% for EFAD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
EFAD has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.8% annualized against 11.6% for DVY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
DVY fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17.5% against -34% for EFAD.
Compare DVY and EFAD 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.