PFFA vs SPY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
PFFA and SPY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. PFFA is Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF, while SPY is State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF. SPY is broader by holdings count, with 505 positions versus 198 for PFFA. SPY has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPY ahead on AIQ Score, 66 versus 43.
| Metric | PFFA | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 2.11% | 0.09% |
| Holdings | 198 | 505 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 10.81% | 0.99% |
| Average volume | 913,884 | 46,698,705 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | -11.2% | +16.4% |
| YTD return | -10.8% | +12.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +4.2% | +12.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 12.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.3% | -9.1% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -22.7% | -24.5% |
| Beta | 0.41 | 1.00 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.80 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.28 | 1.39 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 43/100 | 66/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 25/100 | 63/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 84/100 | 88/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
SPY leads
SPY leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support SPY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPY over PFFA, 66 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. SPY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SPY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 23 points over 30 sessions. SPY leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Virtus InfraCap U.S. Preferred Stock ETF and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
PFFA 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 want | PFFA | SPY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 2.11% | 0.09% | SPY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 198 | 505 | SPY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 10.81% | 0.99% | PFFA |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -22.7% | -24.5% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 8.8% | 12.8% | 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 PFFA and SPY 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 63SPY +38
- Quality53 vs 84SPY +31
- Value27 vs 41SPY +14
- Risk Resilience84 vs 88SPY +4
4 of 4 evidence groups favor SPY. SPY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 +16
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
SPY's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PFFA 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.
| Measure | PFFA | SPY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 2.11% | 0.09% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 198 | 505 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 913,884 | 46,698,705 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 12.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.3% | -9.1% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.80 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.41 | 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.
PFFA vs SPY: five-year payout growth
SPY grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.05% a year against PFFA's 1.65%. Neither fund reduced its annual distribution in any year of the window. PFFA: The 2020 payout was 28.8% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | PFFA | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 1.65% | 5.05% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.880 | $5.691 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.040 | $7.281 |
| Calendar-year declines | 0 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #122 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
4 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 group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPY | 43 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SPY | Value 27 vs 41 |
| Technicals | SPY | Price vs 50-day -6.9% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day -8.9% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | SPY | Risk Resilience 84 vs 88 |
| 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 SPY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 SPY.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20SPY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPY +23
- 43 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- SPY +23
- 43 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- SPY +23
- 43 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
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.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only PFFA
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 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
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SPY
- 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.
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.
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 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.
- 1PFFA closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge.
- 2PFFA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SPY'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
SPY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | PFFA | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.6% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.4% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.4% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | -10.8% | 12.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -11.2% | 16.4% |
Technicals
SPY has the stronger structure| Metric | PFFA | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.2 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 41.6 | 12.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.9% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.9% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.6% | 9% |
Risk
SPY is the more resilient| Metric | PFFA | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.41 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.8 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.28 | 1.39 |
| Max drawdown | -13.3% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -13.3% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 8.8% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, PFFA or SPY?
SPY holds more positions: 505 versus 198 for PFFA.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPY has the lower expense ratio, 0.09% 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 0.99% for SPY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SPY has been more volatile over the past year, at 12.8% annualized against 8.8% for PFFA.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -22.7% for PFFA and -24.5% for SPY.
Compare PFFA 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.