DWX vs EFAD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
DWX and EFAD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. DWX is State Street SPDR S&P International Dividend ETF, while EFAD is ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF. DWX is broader by holdings count, with 123 positions versus 77 for EFAD. DWX has the lower expense ratio.
| Metric | DWX | EFAD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.45% | 0.5% |
| Holdings | 123 | 77 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 4.12% | 2.48% |
| Average volume | 23,770 | 3,126 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +9.4% | +6.8% |
| YTD return | +6.3% | +8.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +8.2% | +1.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.4% | 13.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.6% | -10.3% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -26.7% | -34% |
| Beta | 0.44 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.45 | 0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 0.37 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 56/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 6/10 |
| Momentum | 60/100 | 79/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 81/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR S&P International Dividend ETF vs ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF
DWX and EFAD are effectively level
DWX and EFAD are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
State Street SPDR S&P International Dividend ETF
ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate DWX and EFAD as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare State Street SPDR S&P International Dividend ETF and ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
DWX 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 | DWX | EFAD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.45% | 0.5% | DWX |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 123 | 77 | DWX |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 4.12% | 2.48% | DWX |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -26.7% | -34% | DWX |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.4% | 13.8% | DWX |
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 DWX 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.
- Momentum60 vs 79EFAD +19
- Value61 vs 50DWX +11
- Quality36 vs 30DWX +6
- Risk Resilience77 vs 81EFAD +4
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +14
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
EFAD's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DWX and EFAD both carry a full feed there.
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 | DWX | EFAD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.45% | 0.5% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 123 | 77 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 23,770 | 3,126 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.4% | 13.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.6% | -10.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.45 | 0.23 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.44 | 0.73 | 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.
DWX vs EFAD: five-year payout growth
EFAD grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 12.67% a year against DWX's 6.78%. DWX: The 2020 payout was 20.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting 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 | DWX | EFAD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.78% | 12.67% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.404 | $0.651 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.949 | $1.182 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #12 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | DWX | Value 61 vs 50 |
| Technicals | EFAD | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs 2.4%; vs 200-day 0.3% vs 5.1% |
| Risk Resilience | EFAD | Risk Resilience 77 vs 81 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20- Today
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- EFAD +4
- 51 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 46 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- DWX +2
- 54 vs 52
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when EFAD moved ahead of DWX.
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 / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only EFAD
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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%, AIQ +4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.1%, AIQ 0 points).
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 5 of 6 windows| Metric | DWX | EFAD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | 3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | 2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.3% | 5.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1% | 5.6% |
| Year to date | 6.3% | 8.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 9.4% | 6.8% |
Technicals
EFAD has the stronger structure| Metric | DWX | EFAD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.5 | 83.2 |
| ADX (14) | 27 | 18.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | 2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.3% | 5.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.7% | 12.5% |
Risk
EFAD is the more resilient| Metric | DWX | EFAD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.44 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.45 | 0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 0.37 |
| Max drawdown | -8.6% | -10.3% |
| Current drawdown | -4% | -1% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.4% | 13.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, DWX or EFAD?
DWX holds more positions: 123 versus 77 for EFAD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
DWX has the lower expense ratio, 0.45% a year against 0.5% for EFAD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
DWX, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.12% against 2.48% for EFAD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
EFAD has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.8% annualized against 11.4% for DWX.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
DWX fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -26.7% against -34% for EFAD.
Compare DWX 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.