ESGU vs SPY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk

ESGU and SPY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. ESGU is iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF, while SPY is State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF. SPY is broader by holdings count, with 505 positions versus 272 for ESGU. SPY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPY ahead on AIQ Score, 66 versus 53.

Market data as of Oct 21, 2026 market close· Fund characteristics as of Oct 21, 2026
ESGU
IShares
vs
SPY
SPDR
ESGU
iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF
Issuer
IShares
Inception
2016-12-01
SPY
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
Issuer
SPDR
Inception
1993-01-22
Expense ratio
ESGU
0.15%
SPY
0.09%
Lower annual fund costSPY
Holdings
ESGU
272
SPY
505
Broader reported basketSPY
1Y return
ESGU
+16.3%
SPY
+16.4%
Trailing performanceSPY
Annualized volatility
ESGU
13%
SPY
12.8%
Lower realized volatilitySPY
MetricESGUSPY
Fund
Expense ratio0.15%0.09%
Holdings272505
Top-10 concentration36.8%38.2%
Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months0.92%0.99%
Average volume391,28646,698,705
Performance
1Y return+16.3%+16.4%
YTD return+12.8%+12.8%
5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested+11.4%+12.6%
Risk
Annualized volatility13%12.8%
Max drawdown (1Y)-9.5%-9.1%
Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested-26.1%-24.5%
Beta1.021.00
Sharpe ratio0.890.91
Sortino ratio1.351.39
AlgovestIQ
AIQ Score53/10066/100
AIQ Edge Score5/109/10
Momentum52/10063/100
Risk Resilience86/10088/100

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF

Data as of Oct 21, 2026· market close· Broad Market / Index· Coverage 64/66 fields· High confidence
AIQ VerdictCompetitiveAIQ Comparison Conviction 6/10

SPY leads

SPY leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.

Competitive: 2 of 4 evidence groups support SPY, and its current signal state is conflicted.

Evidence agreement: 2 of 4Comparison trend: Stable
ESGU

iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF

AIQ Score
53/100
AIQ Edge Score
5/10
SPY

State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF

Leads
AIQ Score
66/100
AIQ Edge Score
9/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPY over ESGU, 66 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. SPY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. SPY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.

Compare iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.

ESGU 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 wantESGUSPYFits
Lower costExpense ratio0.15%0.09%SPY
Broader diversificationNumber of holdings272505SPY
Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings36.8%38.2%Similar
Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield0.92%0.99%Similar
Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years-26.1%-24.5%Similar
Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year13%12.8%Similar

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.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.

ESGU
+71.5%
SPY
+80.5%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested

ESGU $17,147 · SPY $18,052

Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.

Compare ESGU and SPY against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

ESGU advantage
0
SPY advantage
  • Quality56 vs 84
    SPY +28
  • Momentum52 vs 63
    SPY +11
  • Value33 vs 41
    SPY +8
  • Risk Resilience86 vs 88
    Even

2 of 4 evidence groups favor SPY. SPY’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.

What changed since the last close

Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.

ESGU+1 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +3

No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.

SPY+4 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +16

New signals

  • Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon

SPY's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ESGU and SPY 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.

MeasureESGUSPYWhy it matters
Expense ratio0.15%0.09%Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold.
Holdings272505More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns.
Average volume391,28646,698,705Liquidity — matters most if you trade size.
Annualized volatility13%12.8%Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure.
Max drawdown (1Y)-9.5%-9.1%The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year.
Sharpe ratio0.890.91Return per unit of risk. Higher is better.
Beta1.021.00Sensitivity 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.

Real Estate2.0% vs 1.7%
Utilities1.7% vs 2.0%
Industrials8.2% vs 8.0%
Energy3.8% vs 3.6%
Information Technology39.7% vs 0.0%
Financials11.4% vs 0.0%
Health Care9.7% vs 0.0%
Communication9.2% vs 0.0%
ESGUSPY

How much of the same holdings they own

ESGU and SPY share 78.05% of their weighted exposure across 249 common holdings.

20 holdings are unique to ESGU, and 255 holdings are unique to SPY. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.

SPY is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 38.17% of the fund, against 36.75% for ESGU (505 holdings vs 272). 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

HoldingESGUSPYShared
NVDANVIDIA CORP7.84%8.08%7.84%
AAPLAPPLE INC6.93%7.33%6.93%
MSFTMICROSOFT CORP5.32%5.59%5.32%
AMZNAMAZON.COM INC3.62%3.77%3.62%
AVGOBROADCOM INC2.53%2.61%2.53%
GOOGALPHABET CLASS C3.37%2.39%2.39%
METAMETA PLATFORMS INC CLASS A2.01%2.16%2.01%
GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A1.85%2.98%1.85%

Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.

What ESGU adds that SPY doesn’t

HoldingESGUSPY
HIGHARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP0.61%0.06%
BNYBANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP0.47%0.17%
NINISOURCE0.43%0.03%
ECLECOLAB0.39%0.1%
CMICUMMINS INC0.38%0.12%
TTTRANE TECHNOLOGIES PLC0.38%0.15%

What SPY adds that ESGU doesn’t

HoldingSPYESGU
BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CL B1.42%0.42%
WMTWALMART INC0.71%Not held
CVXCHEVRON CORP0.61%0.1%
PMPHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL0.45%Not held
WFCWELLS FARGO + CO0.42%0.18%
PEPPEPSICO INC0.28%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.

ESGU vs SPY: five-year payout growth

ESGU grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.19% a year against SPY's 5.05%. SPY never reduced its annual distribution in the window; ESGU did in 1 year.

Dividend metricESGUSPY
5Y payout CAGR6.19%5.05%
2020 annual payout$1.090$5.691
2025 annual payout$1.472$7.281
Calendar-year declines10
Peer rank#83 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 SPY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreSPY53 vs 66
FundamentalsNot coveredNot covered
ValuationSPYValue 33 vs 41
TechnicalsEvenPrice vs 50-day 0.6% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 6.1% vs 5.9%
Risk ResilienceEvenRisk Resilience 86 vs 88
Analyst expectationsNot coveredNot covered

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ESGU and SPY and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Competitive

The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.

  • The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
  • 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 SPY.

How the comparison changed

120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20

SPY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.

Jun 21ESGU leads above the line · SPY leads belowOct 20
Today
SPY +13
53 vs 66
7 sessions ago
SPY +11
55 vs 66
30 sessions ago
SPY +11
55 vs 66
90 sessions ago
SPY +10
60 vs 70

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.

ESGUConflicted

3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted

Only ESGU

  • Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
SPYConflicted

4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

Only SPY

  • Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon

Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, MACD Bearish Crossover.

SPY 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.

ESGUConfirmed strength

Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.63%, AIQ +1 points).

SPYConfirmed strength

Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.53%, AIQ +4 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.

  1. 1ESGU closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge.
  2. 2ESGU's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
  3. 3SPY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
  4. 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

SPY leads 4 of 6 windows
MetricESGUSPY
1 week (5 sessions)-1.3%-1.2%
1 month (20 sessions)-0.7%-0.6%
3 months (63 sessions)2.6%2.9%
6 months (126 sessions)9.6%9.2%
Year to date12.8%12.8%
1 year (252 sessions)16.3%16.4%

Technicals

Split
MetricESGUSPY
RSI (14)55.156.2
ADX (14)12.712.5
Price vs 50-day0.6%0.6%
Price vs 200-day6.1%5.9%
Volatility (1M, annualized)9.6%9%

Risk

Split
MetricESGUSPY
Beta1.021
Sharpe ratio0.890.91
Sortino ratio1.351.39
Max drawdown-9.5%-9.1%
Current drawdown-1.5%-1.3%
Annualized volatility13%12.8%
Value at risk (95%)-1.3%-1.4%

Straight answers

Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.

How much do ESGU and SPY overlap?

ESGU and SPY share 78.05% of their weighted exposure across 249 common holdings. 20 holdings are unique to ESGU, and 255 holdings are unique to SPY. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.

Which ETF is more diversified, ESGU or SPY?

SPY holds more positions: 505 versus 272 for ESGU.

Which has the lower expense ratio?

SPY has the lower expense ratio, 0.09% a year against 0.15% for ESGU.

Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?

Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.92% for ESGU and 0.99% for SPY.

Which ETF has been more volatile?

Their volatility over the past year is similar: 13% annualized for ESGU and 12.8% for SPY.

Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?

Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -26.1% for ESGU and -24.5% for SPY.

Compare ESGU 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.