QVAL vs SLYV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QVAL and SLYV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QVAL is Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF, while SLYV is State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF. SLYV is broader by holdings count, with 463 positions versus 52 for QVAL. QVAL is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
What is the main difference between QVAL and SLYV?
SLYV holds 463 positions to QVAL's 52, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QVAL | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.28% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 52 | 463 |
| Top-10 concentration | 23.7% | 9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.4% | 1.97% |
| Average volume | 49,819 | 200,936 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +35% | +16.6% |
| YTD return | +28.4% | +14.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +12.5% | +5.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14.5% | 16% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.7% | -9.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -27.1% | -28.7% |
| Beta | 0.54 | 0.79 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.81 | 1.50 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 57/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 7/10 |
| Momentum | 63/100 | 53/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 68/100 | 75/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF
QVAL and SLYV are effectively level
QVAL and SLYV are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF
State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate QVAL and SLYV as of Nov 7, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Value ETF and State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QVAL vs SLYV: 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 | QVAL | SLYV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.28% | 0.15% | SLYV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 52 | 463 | SLYV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 23.7% | 9% | SLYV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.4% | 1.97% | SLYV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -27.1% | -28.7% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14.5% | 16% | QVAL |
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 QVAL and SLYV 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.
- Quality40 vs 50SLYV +10
- Momentum63 vs 53QVAL +10
- Risk Resilience68 vs 75SLYV +7
- Value62 vs 59Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
QVAL's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QVAL and SLYV 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 | QVAL | SLYV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.28% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 52 | 463 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 49,819 | 200,936 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14.5% | 16% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.7% | -9.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 0.91 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.54 | 0.79 | 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
QVAL and SLYV share 0.74% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings.
49 holdings are unique to QVAL, and 459 holdings are unique to SLYV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QVAL is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 23.66% of the fund, against 8.99% for SLYV (52 holdings vs 463). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | QVAL | SLYV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPBCampbell's Company/The | 2% | 0.45% | 0.45% |
| ADTADT Inc | 1.89% | 0.29% | 0.29% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What QVAL adds that SLYV doesn’t
| Holding | QVAL | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| AUAnglogold Ashanti Plc | 2.94% | Not held |
| HLHecla Mining Co | 2.76% | Not held |
| NEMNewmont Corp | 2.74% | Not held |
| REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc | 2.27% | Not held |
| APAAPA Corp | 2.26% | Not held |
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 2.2% | Not held |
What SLYV adds that QVAL doesn’t
| Holding | SLYV | QVAL |
|---|---|---|
| MTCHMATCH GROUP INC | 1.08% | Not held |
| JXNJACKSON FINANCIAL INC A | 1.07% | Not held |
| PAYCPAYCOM SOFTWARE INC | 0.99% | Not held |
| SMSM ENERGY CO | 0.96% | Not held |
| KMXCARMAX INC | 0.95% | Not held |
| EMNEASTMAN CHEMICAL CO | 0.86% | 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.
QVAL vs SLYV: five-year payout growth
SLYV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 14.63% a year against QVAL's 6.14%. QVAL: The 2020 payout was 13.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SLYV: The 2020 payout was 15.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SLYV: The payout jumped 77.4% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | QVAL | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.14% | 14.63% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.522 | $0.929 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.703 | $1.839 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #85 of 138 | #39 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 57 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 62 vs 59 |
| Technicals | QVAL | Price vs 50-day 2.2% vs -1.3%; vs 200-day 10.7% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | SLYV | Risk Resilience 68 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6QVAL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- SLYV +3
- 61 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- QVAL +4
- 61 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- QVAL +1
- 59 vs 58
The lead changed hands 11 times in this window, most recently on Nov 5 when QVAL moved ahead of SLYV.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QVAL
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.32%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only SLYV
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.07%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.43%, AIQ 0 points).
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
QVAL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | QVAL | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.9% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.8% | 0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.1% | -5.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.2% | 0.9% |
| Year to date | 28.4% | 14.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 35% | 16.6% |
Technicals
QVAL has the stronger structure| Metric | QVAL | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.4 | 55.2 |
| ADX (14) | 40.8 | 20.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.2% | -1.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.7% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.7% | 19.4% |
Risk
SLYV is the more resilient| Metric | QVAL | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | 0.79 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.81 | 1.5 |
| Max drawdown | -6.7% | -9.4% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -7.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 14.5% | 16% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.5% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QVAL and SLYV?
SLYV holds 463 positions to QVAL's 52, and 1% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QVAL and SLYV overlap?
QVAL and SLYV share 0.74% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings. 49 holdings are unique to QVAL, and 459 holdings are unique to SLYV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QVAL or SLYV?
SLYV holds more positions: 463 versus 52 for QVAL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SLYV has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.28% for QVAL.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SLYV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.97% against 1.4% for QVAL.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SLYV has been more volatile over the past year, at 16% annualized against 14.5% for QVAL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -27.1% for QVAL and -28.7% for SLYV.
Compare QVAL and SLYV 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.