SDY vs SMDV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SDY and SMDV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SDY is State Street SPDR S&P Dividend ETF, while SMDV is ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF. SDY is broader by holdings count, with 158 positions versus 101 for SMDV. SDY is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SDY ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 49.
What is the main difference between SDY and SMDV?
SDY and SMDV have little in common: 3% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SDY | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.4% |
| Holdings | 158 | 101 |
| Top-10 concentration | 20.6% | 12.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.42% | 2.39% |
| Average volume | 208,470 | 99,719 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +12.9% | +11.6% |
| YTD return | +12.2% | +10.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +7.5% | +5.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.8% | 13.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8% | -9.8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -15.2% | -21.2% |
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.75 | 0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.40 | 0.96 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 49/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 82/100 | 52/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 77/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR S&P Dividend ETF vs ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
SDY leads
SDY leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SDY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street SPDR S&P Dividend ETF
ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SDY over SMDV, 63 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. SDY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while SMDV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SDY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SDY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SDY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street SPDR S&P Dividend ETF and ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SDY 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 | SDY | SMDV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.4% | SDY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 158 | 101 | SDY |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 20.6% | 12.1% | SMDV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.42% | 2.39% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -15.2% | -21.2% | SDY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.8% | 13.9% | SDY |
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 SDY 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.
- Momentum82 vs 52SDY +30
- Quality54 vs 42SDY +12
- Value52 vs 40SDY +12
- Risk Resilience72 vs 77SMDV +5
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SDY. SDY’s edge is concentrated in momentum 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: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.6%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
SDY's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SDY and SMDV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SDY (State Street SPDR S&P Dividend ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
SMDV (ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats 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 | SDY | SMDV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.4% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 158 | 101 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 208,470 | 99,719 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.8% | 13.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8% | -9.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.75 | 0.54 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.23 | 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
SDY and SMDV share 2.64% of their weighted exposure across 17 common holdings.
139 holdings are unique to SDY, and 83 holdings are unique to SMDV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SDY is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 20.57% of the fund, against 12.09% for SMDV (158 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 | SDY | SMDV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| UBSIUNITED BANKSHARES INC | 0.27% | 1.04% | 0.27% |
| BKHBLACK HILLS CORP | 0.23% | 0.99% | 0.23% |
| NJRNEW JERSEY RESOURCES CORP | 0.22% | 0.98% | 0.22% |
| SRSPIRE INC | 0.2% | 1.03% | 0.2% |
| OGSONE GAS INC | 0.2% | 1% | 0.2% |
| BMIBADGER METER INC | 0.19% | 0.98% | 0.19% |
| FELEFRANKLIN ELECTRIC CO INC | 0.16% | 0.94% | 0.16% |
| AWRAMERICAN STATES WATER CO | 0.14% | 1.13% | 0.14% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SDY adds that SMDV doesn’t
| Holding | SDY | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| VZVERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC | 3.23% | Not held |
| ACNACCENTURE PLC CL A | 3.15% | Not held |
| CVXCHEVRON CORP | 2.08% | Not held |
| OREALTY INCOME CORP | 2.05% | Not held |
| PEPPEPSICO INC | 1.91% | Not held |
| MDTMEDTRONIC PLC | 1.85% | Not held |
What SMDV adds that SDY doesn’t
| Holding | SMDV | SDY |
|---|---|---|
| HNIHNI CORP | 1.4% | Not held |
| GICGLOBAL INDUSTRIAL CO | 1.27% | Not held |
| PRGOPERRIGO CO PLC | 1.24% | 0.08% |
| AGMFEDERAL AGRIC MTG CORP-CL C | 1.23% | Not held |
| EXPOEXPONENT INC | 1.2% | Not held |
| SCLSTEPAN CO | 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.
SDY vs SMDV: five-year payout growth
SMDV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.62% a year against SDY's 3.76%.
| Dividend metric | SDY | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 3.76% | 7.62% |
| 2020 annual payout | $3.022 | $1.220 |
| 2025 annual payout | $3.634 | $1.761 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #22 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
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SDY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SDY | 63 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SDY | Value 52 vs 40 |
| Technicals | SDY | Price vs 50-day 1.7% vs -2.4%; vs 200-day 3.4% 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 SDY and SMDV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 SDY.
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20SDY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SDY +14
- 63 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- SDY +17
- 63 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- SDY +7
- 49 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- SDY +3
- 57 vs 54
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 23 when SDY moved ahead of SMDV.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SDY
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.6%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only SMDV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
SDY 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 -0.07%, AIQ 0 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 Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to SDY's edge.
- 2SMDV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SDY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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
SDY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SDY | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.5% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.1% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.2% | -5.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.5% | 1.1% |
| Year to date | 12.2% | 10.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.9% | 11.6% |
Technicals
SDY has the stronger structure| Metric | SDY | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 82.9 | 61.7 |
| ADX (14) | 31.8 | 29.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.7% | -2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.4% | -0.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.7% | 11.9% |
Risk
SMDV is the more resilient| Metric | SDY | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | 0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.75 | 0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.4 | 0.96 |
| Max drawdown | -8% | -9.8% |
| Current drawdown | -1.9% | -7.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.8% | 13.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.9% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SDY and SMDV?
SDY and SMDV have little in common: 3% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SDY and SMDV overlap?
SDY and SMDV share 2.64% of their weighted exposure across 17 common holdings. 139 holdings are unique to SDY, and 83 holdings are unique to SMDV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SDY or SMDV?
SDY holds more positions: 158 versus 101 for SMDV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SDY has the lower expense ratio, 0.35% a year against 0.4% for SMDV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 2.42% for SDY and 2.39% for SMDV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SMDV has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.9% annualized against 10.8% for SDY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SDY fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -15.2% against -21.2% for SMDV.
Compare SDY 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.