KBWB vs SMH: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
KBWB and SMH are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. KBWB is Invesco KBW Bank ETF, while SMH is VanEck Semiconductor ETF. SMH is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has KBWB ahead on AIQ Score, 62 versus 41.
What is the main difference between KBWB and SMH?
KBWB and SMH have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | KBWB | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 29 | 27 |
| Top-10 concentration | 61% | 71.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.09% | 0.19% |
| Average volume | 2,057,849 | 9,098,742 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.9% | +61.7% |
| YTD return | +5.8% | +57.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +7.3% | +33.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 40.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -24.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -49.3% | -45.3% |
| Beta | 0.90 | 2.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 1.22 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 1.77 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 62/100 | 41/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 58/100 | 30/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 22/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco KBW Bank ETF vs VanEck Semiconductor ETF
KBWB leads
KBWB leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from SMH.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support KBWB, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Invesco KBW Bank ETF
VanEck Semiconductor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KBWB over SMH, 62 versus 41 as of Oct 31, 2026. KBWB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while SMH holds the stronger quality profile. KBWB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor KBWB today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. KBWB lead: Reversed — SMH led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KBWB now leads by 21.
Compare Invesco KBW Bank ETF and VanEck Semiconductor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
KBWB vs SMH: 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 | KBWB | SMH | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.35% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 29 | 27 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 61% | 71.6% | KBWB |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.09% | 0.19% | KBWB |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -49.3% | -45.3% | SMH |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.8% | 40.1% | KBWB |
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 KBWB and SMH 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.
- Risk Resilience72 vs 22KBWB +50
- Value65 vs 31KBWB +34
- Momentum58 vs 30KBWB +28
- Quality59 vs 71SMH +12
3 of 4 evidence groups favor KBWB. KBWB’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; SMH keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +14
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
KBWB's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KBWB and SMH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KBWB (Invesco KBW Bank ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
SMH (VanEck Semiconductor ETF): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 38.2% against 13.9%.
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 | KBWB | SMH | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 29 | 27 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,057,849 | 9,098,742 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 40.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.4% | -24.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 1.22 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.90 | 2.42 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
KBWB and SMH share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
25 holdings are unique to KBWB, and 25 holdings are unique to SMH. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SMH is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 71.61% of the fund, against 60.99% for KBWB (27 holdings vs 29). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
What KBWB adds that SMH doesn’t
| Holding | KBWB | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| BACBank of America Corp | 8.77% | Not held |
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 8.54% | Not held |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co | 8.34% | Not held |
| MSMorgan Stanley | 7.39% | Not held |
| GSGoldman Sachs Group Inc/The | 7.19% | Not held |
| STTState Street Corp | 4.45% | Not held |
What SMH adds that KBWB doesn’t
| Holding | SMH | KBWB |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 22.43% | Not held |
| TSMTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co L | 9.77% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.9% | Not held |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 5.73% | Not held |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 5.64% | Not held |
| ASMLAsml Holding Nv | 5.01% | 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.
KBWB vs SMH: five-year payout growth
SMH grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 8.02% a year against KBWB's 5.36%. SMH: The 2020 payout was 64.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SMH: The payout jumped 52.6% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | KBWB | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.36% | 8.02% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.323 | $0.751 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.717 | $1.105 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #91 of 138 | #69 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 KBWB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KBWB | 62 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | KBWB | Value 65 vs 31 |
| Technicals | SMH | Price vs 50-day -3.1% vs -8.9%; vs 200-day 0.3% vs 9.6% |
| Risk Resilience | KBWB | Risk Resilience 72 vs 22 |
| 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 KBWB and SMH 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 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 KBWB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28KBWB lead: Reversed — SMH led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KBWB now leads by 21.
- Today
- KBWB +21
- 62 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- KBWB +20
- 58 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- SMH +3
- 54 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- KBWB +16
- 58 vs 42
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 22 when SMH moved ahead of KBWB.
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 / 1 neutral
Only KBWB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only SMH
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
SMH is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.86%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -6.98%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1SMH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to KBWB's edge.
- 2SMH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3KBWB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
SMH leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | KBWB | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.2% | -6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7% | 5.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.6% | 13.6% |
| Year to date | 5.8% | 57.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.9% | 61.7% |
Technicals
SMH has the stronger structure| Metric | KBWB | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.5 | 38.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 25.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.1% | -8.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.3% | 9.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.9% | 38.2% |
Risk
KBWB is the more resilient| Metric | KBWB | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.9 | 2.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 1.22 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 1.77 |
| Max drawdown | -16.4% | -24.6% |
| Current drawdown | -10.6% | -15.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 40.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between KBWB and SMH?
KBWB and SMH have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do KBWB and SMH overlap?
KBWB and SMH share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 25 holdings are unique to KBWB, and 25 holdings are unique to SMH. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, KBWB or SMH?
They hold a similar number of positions: 29 for KBWB and 27 for SMH.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.35% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
KBWB, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.09% against 0.19% for SMH.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SMH has been more volatile over the past year, at 40.1% annualized against 19.8% for KBWB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SMH fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -45.3% against -49.3% for KBWB.
Compare KBWB and SMH 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.