KBWY vs PFFA: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
KBWY and PFFA are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. KBWY is Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF, while PFFA is Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF. PFFA is broader by holdings count, with 198 positions versus 31 for KBWY. KBWY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has KBWY ahead on AIQ Score, 46 versus 43.
What is the main difference between KBWY and PFFA?
PFFA holds 198 positions to KBWY's 31.
| Metric | KBWY | PFFA |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 2.11% |
| Holdings | 31 | 198 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 9.08% | 10.81% |
| Average volume | 207,889 | 913,884 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +5.3% | -11.2% |
| YTD return | +5.2% | -10.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +0.2% | +4.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 8.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -17.4% | -13.3% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.3% | -22.7% |
| Beta | 0.38 | 0.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | -1.80 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.24 | -2.28 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 46/100 | 43/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 35/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 74/100 | 84/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF vs Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF
KBWY leads
KBWY leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 4 evidence groups support KBWY, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF
Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KBWY over PFFA, 46 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. KBWY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while PFFA holds the stronger quality profile. KBWY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor KBWY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. KBWY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF and Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
KBWY vs PFFA: 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 | KBWY | PFFA | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 2.11% | KBWY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 31 | 198 | PFFA |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 9.08% | 10.81% | PFFA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.3% | -22.7% | PFFA |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 16.7% | 8.8% | PFFA |
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 KBWY and PFFA 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.
- Value46 vs 27KBWY +19
- Quality42 vs 53PFFA +11
- Momentum35 vs 25KBWY +10
- Risk Resilience74 vs 84PFFA +10
2 of 4 evidence groups favor KBWY. KBWY’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; PFFA keeps a meaningful quality 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 +10
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
KBWY's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KBWY and PFFA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KBWY (Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
PFFA (Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience.
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 | KBWY | PFFA | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 2.11% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 31 | 198 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 207,889 | 913,884 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 8.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -17.4% | -13.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | -1.80 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.38 | 0.41 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
KBWY vs PFFA: five-year payout growth
PFFA grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 1.65% a year against KBWY's -6.75%. PFFA never reduced its annual distribution in the window; KBWY did in 3 years. PFFA: The 2020 payout was 28.8% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | KBWY | PFFA |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | -6.75% | 1.65% |
| 2020 annual payout | $2.143 | $1.880 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.511 | $2.040 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #132 of 138 | #122 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 KBWY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 46 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | KBWY | Value 46 vs 27 |
| Technicals | KBWY | Price vs 50-day -7.4% vs -6.9%; vs 200-day -4.8% vs -8.9% |
| Risk Resilience | PFFA | Risk Resilience 74 vs 84 |
| 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 KBWY and PFFA 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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'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 KBWY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20KBWY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KBWY +3
- 46 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- KBWY +2
- 45 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 43 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when PFFA moved ahead of KBWY.
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 KBWY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.28%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only PFFA
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.38%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.06%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
PFFA 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 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.41%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.79%, 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.
- 1PFFA closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to KBWY's edge.
- 2PFFA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3KBWY'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
KBWY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | KBWY | PFFA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.7% | -6.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.2% | -7.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.4% | -10.4% |
| Year to date | 5.2% | -10.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.3% | -11.2% |
Technicals
KBWY has the stronger structure| Metric | KBWY | PFFA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.4 | 25.2 |
| ADX (14) | 53.1 | 41.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.4% | -6.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.8% | -8.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.4% | 9.6% |
Risk
PFFA is the more resilient| Metric | KBWY | PFFA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.38 | 0.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | -1.8 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.24 | -2.28 |
| Max drawdown | -17.4% | -13.3% |
| Current drawdown | -15.4% | -13.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.7% | 8.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between KBWY and PFFA?
PFFA holds 198 positions to KBWY's 31.
Which ETF is more diversified, KBWY or PFFA?
PFFA holds more positions: 198 versus 31 for KBWY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
KBWY has the lower expense ratio, 0.35% a year against 2.11% for PFFA.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
PFFA, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 10.81% against 9.08% for KBWY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
KBWY has been more volatile over the past year, at 16.7% annualized against 8.8% for PFFA.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
PFFA fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -22.7% against -32.3% for KBWY.
Compare KBWY and PFFA 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.