SMDV vs SPHD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SMDV and SPHD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SMDV is ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF, while SPHD is Invesco S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility ETF. SMDV is broader by holdings count, with 101 positions versus 54 for SPHD. SPHD is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPHD ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 49.
What is the main difference between SMDV and SPHD?
SMDV and SPHD have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SMDV | SPHD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.3% |
| Holdings | 101 | 54 |
| Top-10 concentration | 12.1% | 28.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.39% | 4.91% |
| Average volume | 99,719 | 895,996 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.6% | +5.1% |
| YTD return | +10.6% | +5.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.2% | +7.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.9% | 11.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -10.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -21.2% | -19.5% |
| Beta | 0.42 | 0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 0.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | 0.15 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 49/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 52/100 | 59/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF vs Invesco S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility ETF
SPHD leads
SPHD leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 1 of 3 evidence groups support SPHD, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Invesco S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPHD over SMDV, 63 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPHD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while SMDV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SPHD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SPHD today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. SPHD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Invesco S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SMDV vs SPHD: 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 | SMDV | SPHD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.4% | 0.3% | SPHD |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 101 | 54 | SMDV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 12.1% | 28.2% | SMDV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.39% | 4.91% | SPHD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -21.2% | -19.5% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.9% | 11.9% | SPHD |
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 SMDV and SPHD 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.
- Quality42 vs 64SPHD +22
- Risk Resilience77 vs 66SMDV +11
- Momentum52 vs 59SPHD +7
1 of 3 evidence groups favor SPHD. SPHD’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; 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 +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
SPHD's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SMDV and SPHD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPHD (Invesco S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
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 | SMDV | SPHD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.3% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 101 | 54 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 99,719 | 895,996 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.9% | 11.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -10.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 0.08 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.42 | 0.06 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
How much of the same holdings they own
SMDV and SPHD share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
100 holdings are unique to SMDV, and 51 holdings are unique to SPHD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SPHD is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 28.23% of the fund, against 12.09% for SMDV (54 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.
What SMDV adds that SPHD doesn’t
| Holding | SMDV | SPHD |
|---|---|---|
| HNIHNI CORP | 1.4% | Not held |
| GICGLOBAL INDUSTRIAL CO | 1.27% | Not held |
| PRGOPERRIGO CO PLC | 1.24% | Not held |
| AGMFEDERAL AGRIC MTG CORP-CL C | 1.23% | Not held |
| EXPOEXPONENT INC | 1.2% | Not held |
| SCLSTEPAN CO | 1.18% | Not held |
What SPHD adds that SMDV doesn’t
| Holding | SPHD | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| VZVerizon Communications Inc | 3.4% | Not held |
| PFEPfizer Inc | 3.4% | Not held |
| GISGeneral Mills Inc | 2.97% | Not held |
| KHCKraft Heinz Co/The | 2.87% | Not held |
| VICIVICI Properties Inc | 2.84% | Not held |
| TAT&T Inc | 2.72% | 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.
SMDV vs SPHD: five-year payout growth
SMDV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.62% a year against SPHD's 0.98%.
| Dividend metric | SMDV | SPHD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.62% | 0.98% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.220 | $1.839 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.761 | $1.931 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #10 of 33 | #31 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
1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SPHD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPHD | 49 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.4% vs -1.2%; vs 200-day -0.2% vs 0% |
| Risk Resilience | SMDV | Risk Resilience 77 vs 66 |
| 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 SMDV and SPHD 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)
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SPHD.
How the comparison changed
41 daily snapshots · Sep 8 – Oct 20SPHD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPHD +14
- 49 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- SPHD +16
- 46 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- SPHD +9
- 42 vs 51
- 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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SPHD
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
SPHD 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 -0.19%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.65%, 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 Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPHD's edge.
- 2SMDV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SPHD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
SPHD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SMDV | SPHD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | 2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | 2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.7% | -3.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.1% | 2.5% |
| Year to date | 10.6% | 5.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.6% | 5.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SMDV | SPHD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.7 | 75.5 |
| ADX (14) | 29.3 | 31 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.4% | -1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.2% | 0% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.9% | 13% |
Risk
SMDV is the more resilient| Metric | SMDV | SPHD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.42 | 0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 0.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | 0.15 |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -10.2% |
| Current drawdown | -7.6% | -5.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.9% | 11.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SMDV and SPHD?
SMDV and SPHD have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SMDV and SPHD overlap?
SMDV and SPHD share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 100 holdings are unique to SMDV, and 51 holdings are unique to SPHD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SMDV or SPHD?
SMDV holds more positions: 101 versus 54 for SPHD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPHD has the lower expense ratio, 0.3% a year against 0.4% for SMDV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SPHD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 4.91% 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 11.9% for SPHD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -21.2% for SMDV and -19.5% for SPHD.
Compare SMDV and SPHD 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.