SLYV vs USMV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SLYV and USMV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SLYV is State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF, while USMV is iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF. SLYV is broader by holdings count, with 463 positions versus 176 for USMV. USMV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has USMV ahead on AIQ Score, 67 versus 57.
What is the main difference between SLYV and USMV?
SLYV and USMV have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SLYV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 463 | 176 |
| Top-10 concentration | 9% | 15.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.97% | 1.39% |
| Average volume | 200,936 | 1,957,599 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.6% | +8.9% |
| YTD return | +14.2% | +7.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.1% | +7.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 16% | 9.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.4% | -6.8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -28.7% | -17.9% |
| Beta | 0.79 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.50 | 0.94 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 57/100 | 67/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 53/100 | 61/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 68/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF vs iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
USMV leads
USMV leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 3 evidence groups support USMV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USMV over SLYV, 67 versus 57 as of Nov 7, 2026. USMV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while SLYV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. USMV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USMV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. USMV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SLYV vs USMV: 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 | SLYV | USMV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 463 | 176 | SLYV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 9% | 15.1% | SLYV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.97% | 1.39% | SLYV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -28.7% | -17.9% | USMV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 16% | 9.2% | USMV |
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 SLYV and USMV 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.
- Quality50 vs 72USMV +22
- Momentum53 vs 61USMV +8
- Risk Resilience75 vs 68SLYV +7
2 of 3 evidence groups favor USMV. USMV’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; SLYV keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
USMV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SLYV and USMV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
USMV (iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
SLYV (State Street SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Value ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience — but at materially higher volatility, 19.4% against 12.4%.
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 | SLYV | USMV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 463 | 176 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 200,936 | 1,957,599 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 16% | 9.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.4% | -6.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 0.62 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.79 | 0.37 | 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
SLYV and USMV share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
461 holdings are unique to SLYV, and 173 holdings are unique to USMV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
USMV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 15.08% of the fund, against 8.99% for SLYV (176 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.
What SLYV adds that USMV doesn’t
| Holding | SLYV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
What USMV adds that SLYV doesn’t
| Holding | USMV | SLYV |
|---|---|---|
| APHAMPHENOL CORP CLASS A | 1.59% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA | 1.57% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 1.55% | Not held |
| WELLWELLTOWER | 1.53% | Not held |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 1.49% | Not held |
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 1.48% | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USMV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | USMV | 57 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | USMV | Price vs 50-day -1.3% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day 0.4% vs 4.1% |
| Risk Resilience | SLYV | Risk Resilience 75 vs 68 |
| 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 SLYV and USMV 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.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 USMV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6USMV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- USMV +10
- 57 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- USMV +11
- 64 vs 75
- 30 sessions ago
- USMV +18
- 57 vs 75
- 90 sessions ago
- USMV +11
- 58 vs 69
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 24 when USMV 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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only SLYV
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only USMV
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.95%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish.
USMV 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 -0.43%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.51%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1SLYV closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to USMV's edge.
- 2SLYV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3USMV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate USMV's advantage entirely.
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
Split across windows| Metric | SLYV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.8% | 0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.8% | 0.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.9% | 7.7% |
| Year to date | 14.2% | 7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.6% | 8.9% |
Technicals
USMV has the stronger structure| Metric | SLYV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 49.8 |
| ADX (14) | 20.9 | 35.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.3% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.4% | 4.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.4% | 12.4% |
Risk
SLYV is the more resilient| Metric | SLYV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.79 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.5 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -9.4% | -6.8% |
| Current drawdown | -7.5% | -3.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 16% | 9.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.5% | -0.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SLYV and USMV?
SLYV and USMV have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SLYV and USMV overlap?
SLYV and USMV share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 461 holdings are unique to SLYV, and 173 holdings are unique to USMV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SLYV or USMV?
SLYV holds more positions: 463 versus 176 for USMV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.15% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SLYV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.97% against 1.39% for USMV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SLYV has been more volatile over the past year, at 16% annualized against 9.2% for USMV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
USMV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17.9% against -28.7% for SLYV.
Compare SLYV and USMV 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.