IWMY vs VOO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
IWMY and VOO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. IWMY is R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF, while VOO is Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. VOO is broader by holdings count, with 508 positions versus 5 for IWMY. VOO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VOO ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 47.
What is the main difference between IWMY and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to IWMY's 5.
| Metric | IWMY | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 1.05% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 5 | 508 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 38% | 1.05% |
| Average volume | 51,811 | 7,814,237 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -24.4% | +16.4% |
| YTD return | -15.5% | +12.7% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 16.8% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.1% | -9.2% |
| Beta | 1.07 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.79 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.58 | 1.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 29/100 | 64/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 87/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
VOO leads
VOO leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VOO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF
Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VOO over IWMY, 64 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. VOO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while IWMY holds the stronger value profile. VOO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VOO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
IWMY vs VOO: 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 | IWMY | VOO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 1.05% | 0.03% | VOO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 5 | 508 | VOO |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 38% | 1.05% | IWMY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -26.1% | -9.2% | VOO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 16.8% | 12.8% | VOO |
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 IWMY and VOO 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.
- Quality34 vs 77VOO +43
- Momentum29 vs 64VOO +35
- Value59 vs 41IWMY +18
- Risk Resilience77 vs 87VOO +10
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VOO. VOO’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; IWMY keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
VOO's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IWMY and VOO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
IWMY (R2000 Weekly Distribution ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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 | IWMY | VOO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 1.05% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 5 | 508 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 51,811 | 7,814,237 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 16.8% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -26.1% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.79 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.07 | 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.
IWMY vs VOO: five-year payout growth
VOO grew its split-adjusted payout at 5.91% a year over 2020-2025. IWMY began paying distributions in 2023, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | IWMY | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $12.477 | $7.068 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #88 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VOO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VOO | 47 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWMY | Value 59 vs 41 |
| Technicals | VOO | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day -12.6% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VOO | Risk Resilience 77 vs 87 |
| 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 IWMY and VOO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 17 points. (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 VOO.
How the comparison changed
99 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20VOO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VOO +17
- 47 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VOO +17
- 46 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- VOO +18
- 46 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- VOO +18
- 50 vs 68
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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
Only IWMY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.71%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VOO
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.84%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VOO 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 up over the latest session (price +0.24%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.55%, 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.
- 1IWMY closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to VOO's edge.
- 2IWMY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VOO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
VOO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IWMY | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.1% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.5% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | -15.5% | 12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -24.4% | 16.4% |
Technicals
VOO has the stronger structure| Metric | IWMY | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.1 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 53.6 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12.6% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.8% | 9.4% |
Risk
VOO is the more resilient| Metric | IWMY | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.07 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.79 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.58 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -26.1% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -24.7% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.8% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between IWMY and VOO?
VOO holds 508 positions to IWMY's 5.
Which ETF is more diversified, IWMY or VOO?
VOO holds more positions: 508 versus 5 for IWMY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VOO has the lower expense ratio, 0.03% a year against 1.05% for IWMY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
IWMY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 38% against 1.05% for VOO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
IWMY has been more volatile over the past year, at 16.8% annualized against 12.8% for VOO.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VOO fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -9.2% against -26.1% for IWMY.
Compare IWMY and VOO 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.