QDVO vs REGL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QDVO and REGL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QDVO is Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF, while REGL is ProShares - S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats ETF. REGL is broader by holdings count, with 66 positions versus 49 for QDVO. QDVO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has REGL ahead on AIQ Score, 55 versus 47.
What is the main difference between QDVO and REGL?
QDVO and REGL have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QDVO | REGL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.56% | 0.4% |
| Holdings | 49 | 66 |
| Top-10 concentration | 56.3% | 17.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 10.69% | 2.22% |
| Average volume | 238,966 | 57,471 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +1.4% | +7.9% |
| YTD return | +1.5% | +6.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.7% | 12.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.8% | -9.8% |
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.36 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 0.33 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.22 | 0.60 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 55/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 41/100 | 60/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 83/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF vs ProShares - S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
REGL leads
REGL leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QDVO.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support REGL, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
ProShares - S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors REGL over QDVO, 55 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. REGL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QDVO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. REGL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor REGL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. REGL lead: Reversed — QDVO led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; REGL now leads by 8.
Compare Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF and ProShares - S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QDVO vs REGL: 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 | QDVO | REGL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.56% | 0.4% | REGL |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 49 | 66 | REGL |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 56.3% | 17.2% | REGL |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 10.69% | 2.22% | QDVO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -14.8% | -9.8% | REGL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.7% | 12.4% | REGL |
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 QDVO and REGL 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.
- Momentum41 vs 60REGL +19
- Value37 vs 54REGL +17
- Risk Resilience83 vs 72QDVO +11
- Quality45 vs 42Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor REGL. REGL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QDVO keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
REGL's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QDVO and REGL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
REGL (ProShares - S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QDVO (Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
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 | QDVO | REGL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.56% | 0.4% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 49 | 66 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 238,966 | 57,471 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.7% | 12.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.8% | -9.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 0.33 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.36 | 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
QDVO and REGL share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
48 holdings are unique to QDVO, and 65 holdings are unique to REGL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QDVO is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 56.29% of the fund, against 17.2% for REGL (49 holdings vs 66). 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 QDVO adds that REGL doesn’t
| Holding | QDVO | REGL |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 10.19% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 9.04% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 8.13% | Not held |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.78% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 5.25% | Not held |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.01% | Not held |
What REGL adds that QDVO doesn’t
| Holding | REGL | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| RGLDROYAL GOLD INC | 1.99% | Not held |
| UNMUNUM GROUP | 1.74% | Not held |
| AVNTAVIENT CORP | 1.73% | Not held |
| THGHANOVER INSURANCE GROUP INC/ | 1.72% | Not held |
| SEICSEI INVESTMENTS COMPANY | 1.69% | Not held |
| WTRGESSENTIAL UTILITIES INC | 1.69% | 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.
QDVO vs REGL: five-year payout growth
REGL grew its split-adjusted payout at 5.21% a year over 2020-2025. QDVO began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | QDVO | REGL |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $2.878 | $1.950 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #17 of 33 |
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 REGL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | REGL | 47 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | REGL | Value 37 vs 54 |
| Technicals | QDVO | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs -1.2%; vs 200-day 0.8% vs -0.5% |
| Risk Resilience | QDVO | Risk Resilience 83 vs 72 |
| 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 QDVO and REGL 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 moderate at 8 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 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 REGL.
How the comparison changed
41 daily snapshots · Sep 8 – Oct 20REGL lead: Reversed — QDVO led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; REGL now leads by 8.
- Today
- REGL +8
- 47 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- REGL +5
- 46 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- QDVO +7
- 53 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when REGL moved ahead of QDVO.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QDVO
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only REGL
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
REGL 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.02%, 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.
- 1QDVO closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to REGL's edge.
- 2QDVO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3REGL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
REGL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | QDVO | REGL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.8% | 1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | 0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.9% | -3.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.8% | -0.5% |
| Year to date | 1.5% | 6.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.4% | 7.9% |
Technicals
QDVO has the stronger structure| Metric | QDVO | REGL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.9 | 70.6 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 34.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | -1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.8% | -0.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12% | 12.8% |
Risk
QDVO is the more resilient| Metric | QDVO | REGL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.36 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 0.33 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.22 | 0.6 |
| Max drawdown | -14.8% | -9.8% |
| Current drawdown | -4.8% | -6.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.7% | 12.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -1.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QDVO and REGL?
QDVO and REGL have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QDVO and REGL overlap?
QDVO and REGL share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 48 holdings are unique to QDVO, and 65 holdings are unique to REGL. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QDVO or REGL?
REGL holds more positions: 66 versus 49 for QDVO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
REGL has the lower expense ratio, 0.4% a year against 0.56% for QDVO.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QDVO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 10.69% against 2.22% for REGL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QDVO has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.7% annualized against 12.4% for REGL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
REGL fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -9.8% against -14.8% for QDVO.
Compare QDVO and REGL 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.