QDVO vs SCHY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QDVO and SCHY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QDVO is Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF, while SCHY is Schwab International Dividend Equity ETF. SCHY is broader by holdings count, with 135 positions versus 49 for QDVO. QDVO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SCHY ahead on AIQ Score, 65 versus 47.
What is the main difference between QDVO and SCHY?
QDVO and SCHY have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QDVO | SCHY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.56% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 49 | 135 |
| Top-10 concentration | 56.3% | 39.4% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 10.69% | 3.57% |
| Average volume | 238,966 | 620,076 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +1.4% | +16.6% |
| YTD return | +1.5% | +10.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.7% | 12.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.8% | -9.3% |
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.48 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 0.94 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.22 | 1.38 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 65/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 41/100 | 79/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 83/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF vs Schwab International Dividend Equity ETF
SCHY leads
SCHY leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QDVO.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SCHY, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
Schwab International Dividend Equity ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHY over QDVO, 65 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. SCHY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QDVO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SCHY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. SCHY lead: Reversed — QDVO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SCHY now leads by 18.
Compare Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF and Schwab International Dividend Equity ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QDVO vs SCHY: 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 | SCHY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.56% | 0.08% | SCHY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 49 | 135 | SCHY |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 56.3% | 39.4% | SCHY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 10.69% | 3.57% | QDVO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -14.8% | -9.3% | SCHY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.7% | 12.5% | SCHY |
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 SCHY 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 79SCHY +38
- Value37 vs 60SCHY +23
- Quality45 vs 51SCHY +6
- Risk Resilience83 vs 77QDVO +6
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHY. SCHY’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 +16
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
SCHY's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QDVO and SCHY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SCHY (Schwab International Dividend Equity ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QDVO (Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF): the counter-case, on 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 | QDVO | SCHY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.56% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 49 | 135 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 238,966 | 620,076 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.7% | 12.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.8% | -9.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 0.94 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.48 | 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 SCHY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
48 holdings are unique to QDVO, and 92 holdings are unique to SCHY. 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 39.36% for SCHY (49 holdings vs 135). 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 SCHY doesn’t
| Holding | QDVO | SCHY |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SCHY adds that QDVO doesn’t
| Holding | SCHY | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| ULVR.LUNILEVER PLC | 4.4% | Not held |
| ROP.SWROCHE PS PAR AG | 4.38% | Not held |
| DHL.DEDHL N AG | 4.12% | Not held |
| ENI.MIENI | 4.01% | Not held |
| TTETOTALENERGIES | 4% | Not held |
| GSK.LGLAXOSMITHKLINE | 3.93% | 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 SCHY: five-year payout growth
QDVO began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. SCHY began paying distributions in 2021, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare.
| Dividend metric | QDVO | SCHY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $2.878 | $1.058 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | 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 SCHY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SCHY | 47 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SCHY | Value 37 vs 60 |
| Technicals | SCHY | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day 0.8% vs 2% |
| Risk Resilience | QDVO | Risk Resilience 83 vs 77 |
| 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 SCHY 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 wide at 18 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 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 SCHY.
How the comparison changed
41 daily snapshots · Sep 8 – Oct 20SCHY lead: Reversed — QDVO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SCHY now leads by 18.
- Today
- SCHY +18
- 47 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHY +13
- 46 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- QDVO +1
- 53 vs 52
- 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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QDVO
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHY
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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.
SCHY 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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.18%, 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.
- 1QDVO closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHY's edge.
- 2QDVO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SCHY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
SCHY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | QDVO | SCHY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.8% | 2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | 0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.9% | 1.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.8% | 1.7% |
| Year to date | 1.5% | 10.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.4% | 16.6% |
Technicals
SCHY has the stronger structure| Metric | QDVO | SCHY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.9 | 78.2 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 26.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.8% | 2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12% | 13.8% |
Risk
QDVO is the more resilient| Metric | QDVO | SCHY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.48 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 0.94 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.22 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -14.8% | -9.3% |
| Current drawdown | -4.8% | -3% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.7% | 12.5% |
| 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 SCHY?
QDVO and SCHY have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QDVO and SCHY overlap?
QDVO and SCHY share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 48 holdings are unique to QDVO, and 92 holdings are unique to SCHY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QDVO or SCHY?
SCHY holds more positions: 135 versus 49 for QDVO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHY has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% 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 3.57% for SCHY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QDVO has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.7% annualized against 12.5% for SCHY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SCHY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -9.3% against -14.8% for QDVO.
Compare QDVO and SCHY 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.