SDIV vs SMDV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SDIV and SMDV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SDIV is Global X - SuperDividend ETF, while SMDV is ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF. SMDV has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SDIV ahead on AIQ Score, 59 versus 49.
What is the main difference between SDIV and SMDV?
SDIV and SMDV have little in common: 2% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SDIV | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.58% | 0.4% |
| Holdings | 119 | 101 |
| Top-10 concentration | 15% | 12.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 9.32% | 2.39% |
| Average volume | 420,613 | 99,719 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +3.2% | +11.6% |
| YTD return | -0.5% | +10.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +0.2% | +5.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 12.3% | 13.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.6% | -9.8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -38.4% | -21.2% |
| Beta | 0.54 | 0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.02 | 0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.02 | 0.96 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 49/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 52/100 | 52/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Global X - SuperDividend ETF vs ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
SDIV leads
SDIV leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support SDIV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Global X - SuperDividend ETF
ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SDIV over SMDV, 59 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. SDIV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while SMDV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SDIV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SDIV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. SDIV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Global X - SuperDividend ETF and ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SDIV vs SMDV: 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 | SDIV | SMDV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.58% | 0.4% | SMDV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 119 | 101 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 15% | 12.1% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 9.32% | 2.39% | SDIV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -38.4% | -21.2% | SMDV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 12.3% | 13.9% | SDIV |
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 SDIV and SMDV 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.
- Value71 vs 40SDIV +31
- Quality48 vs 42SDIV +6
- Risk Resilience72 vs 77SMDV +5
- Momentum52 vs 52Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor SDIV. SDIV’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; SMDV 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 +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
SDIV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SDIV and SMDV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SDIV (Global X - SuperDividend ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
SMDV (ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats 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 | SDIV | SMDV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.58% | 0.4% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 119 | 101 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 420,613 | 99,719 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.3% | 13.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -11.6% | -9.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.02 | 0.54 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.54 | 0.42 | 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
SDIV and SMDV share 2.02% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings.
95 holdings are unique to SDIV, and 98 holdings are unique to SMDV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SDIV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 15% of the fund, against 12.09% for SMDV (119 holdings vs 101). 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 | SDIV | SMDV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRGOPERRIGO CO PLC | 1.22% | 1.24% | 1.22% |
| CHCTCOMMUNITY HEALTHCARE TRUST I | 0.8% | 0.81% | 0.8% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SDIV adds that SMDV doesn’t
| Holding | SDIV | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| TFG-R.BKTHAIFOODS GROUP PCL-NVDR | 1.75% | Not held |
| NATNORDIC AMERICAN TANKERS LTD | 1.62% | Not held |
| HAUTO.OLHOEGH AUTOLINERS ASA | 1.59% | Not held |
| VCT.LVICTREX PLC | 1.58% | Not held |
| VAR.OLVAR ENERGI ASA | 1.57% | Not held |
| ITH.LITHACA ENERGY PLC | 1.46% | Not held |
What SMDV adds that SDIV doesn’t
| Holding | SMDV | SDIV |
|---|---|---|
| HNIHNI CORP | 1.4% | Not held |
| GICGLOBAL INDUSTRIAL CO | 1.27% | Not held |
| AGMFEDERAL AGRIC MTG CORP-CL C | 1.23% | Not held |
| EXPOEXPONENT INC | 1.2% | Not held |
| SCLSTEPAN CO | 1.18% | Not held |
| MATXMATSON INC | 1.18% | 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.
SDIV vs SMDV: five-year payout growth
SMDV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.62% a year against SDIV's -5.55%. SDIV: The 2020 payout was 33.8% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | SDIV | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | -5.55% | 7.62% |
| 2020 annual payout | $3.066 | $1.220 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.305 | $1.761 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #33 of 33 | #10 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 SDIV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SDIV | 59 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SDIV | Value 71 vs 40 |
| Technicals | SMDV | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs -2.4%; vs 200-day -4.4% vs -0.2% |
| Risk Resilience | SMDV | Risk Resilience 72 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 SDIV and SMDV 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 10 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 SDIV.
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20SDIV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SDIV +10
- 59 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- SDIV +11
- 57 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- SDIV +11
- 53 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- SDIV +5
- 59 vs 54
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 11 when SMDV moved ahead of SDIV.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SDIV
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.88%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only SMDV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.14%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
SDIV 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.21%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.19%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1SMDV closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to SDIV's edge.
- 2SMDV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SDIV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
SMDV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SDIV | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.6% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.5% | -5.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.9% | 1.1% |
| Year to date | -0.5% | 10.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3.2% | 11.6% |
Technicals
SMDV has the stronger structure| Metric | SDIV | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.8 | 61.7 |
| ADX (14) | 27.3 | 29.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | -2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.4% | -0.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.3% | 11.9% |
Risk
SMDV is the more resilient| Metric | SDIV | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | 0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.02 | 0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.02 | 0.96 |
| Max drawdown | -11.6% | -9.8% |
| Current drawdown | -9.3% | -7.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.3% | 13.9% |
| 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.
What is the difference between SDIV and SMDV?
SDIV and SMDV have little in common: 2% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SDIV and SMDV overlap?
SDIV and SMDV share 2.02% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings. 95 holdings are unique to SDIV, and 98 holdings are unique to SMDV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SDIV or SMDV?
They hold a similar number of positions: 119 for SDIV and 101 for SMDV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SMDV has the lower expense ratio, 0.4% a year against 0.58% for SDIV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SDIV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 9.32% against 2.39% for SMDV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SMDV has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.9% annualized against 12.3% for SDIV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SMDV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -21.2% against -38.4% for SDIV.
Compare SDIV and SMDV 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.