PFFA vs QDVO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PFFA and QDVO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PFFA is Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF, while QDVO is Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF. PFFA is broader by holdings count, with 198 positions versus 49 for QDVO. QDVO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QDVO ahead on AIQ Score, 47 versus 43.
What is the main difference between PFFA and QDVO?
PFFA holds 198 positions to QDVO's 49.
| Metric | PFFA | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 2.11% | 0.56% |
| Holdings | 198 | 49 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 10.81% | 10.69% |
| Average volume | 913,884 | 238,966 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -11.2% | +1.4% |
| YTD return | -10.8% | +1.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 13.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.3% | -14.8% |
| Beta | 0.41 | 0.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.80 | -0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.28 | -0.22 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 43/100 | 47/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 25/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 83/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF vs Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
QDVO leads
QDVO leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support QDVO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF
Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QDVO over PFFA, 47 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. QDVO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while PFFA holds the stronger quality profile. QDVO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QDVO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. QDVO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF and Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PFFA vs QDVO: 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 | PFFA | QDVO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 2.11% | 0.56% | QDVO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 198 | 49 | PFFA |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 10.81% | 10.69% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -13.3% | -14.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 8.8% | 13.7% | 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 PFFA and QDVO 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.
- Momentum25 vs 41QDVO +16
- Value27 vs 37QDVO +10
- Quality53 vs 45PFFA +8
- Risk Resilience84 vs 83Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor QDVO. QDVO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; 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.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
QDVO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PFFA and QDVO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QDVO (Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
PFFA (Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
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 | PFFA | QDVO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 2.11% | 0.56% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 198 | 49 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 913,884 | 238,966 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 13.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.3% | -14.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.80 | -0.14 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.41 | 0.96 | 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.
PFFA vs QDVO: five-year payout growth
PFFA grew its split-adjusted payout at 1.65% a year over 2020-2025. QDVO began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. PFFA: The 2020 payout was 28.8% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | PFFA | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $2.040 | $2.878 |
| Peer rank | #122 of 138 | not ranked |
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 QDVO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QDVO | 43 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QDVO | Value 27 vs 37 |
| Technicals | QDVO | Price vs 50-day -6.9% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day -8.9% vs 0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 84 vs 83 |
| 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 PFFA and QDVO and are excluded from the count.
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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 QDVO.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20QDVO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QDVO +4
- 43 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- QDVO +3
- 43 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- QDVO +10
- 43 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when QDVO moved ahead of PFFA.
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.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only PFFA
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.38%)
- 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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QDVO
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.22%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QDVO 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.
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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -1 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 Momentum gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to QDVO's edge.
- 2PFFA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QDVO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate QDVO's advantage entirely.
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
QDVO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PFFA | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.6% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.4% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.4% | 1.8% |
| Year to date | -10.8% | 1.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -11.2% | 1.4% |
Technicals
QDVO has the stronger structure| Metric | PFFA | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.2 | 41.9 |
| ADX (14) | 41.6 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.9% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.9% | 0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.6% | 12% |
Risk
Split| Metric | PFFA | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.41 | 0.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.8 | -0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.28 | -0.22 |
| Max drawdown | -13.3% | -14.8% |
| Current drawdown | -13.3% | -4.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 13.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between PFFA and QDVO?
PFFA holds 198 positions to QDVO's 49.
Which ETF is more diversified, PFFA or QDVO?
PFFA holds more positions: 198 versus 49 for QDVO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QDVO has the lower expense ratio, 0.56% a year against 2.11% for PFFA.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 10.81% for PFFA and 10.69% for QDVO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QDVO has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.7% annualized against 8.8% for PFFA.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past year are similar: -13.3% for PFFA and -14.8% for QDVO.
Compare PFFA and QDVO 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.