SMDV vs SPHQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SMDV and SPHQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SMDV is ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF, while SPHQ is Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF. SPHQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPHQ ahead on AIQ Score, 54 versus 49.
What is the main difference between SMDV and SPHQ?
SMDV and SPHQ have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SMDV | SPHQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Holdings | 101 | 103 |
| Top-10 concentration | 12.1% | 43.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.39% | 1.03% |
| Average volume | 99,719 | 1,467,307 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.6% | +15.5% |
| YTD return | +10.6% | +12.4% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.2% | +11.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.9% | 14.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -9.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -21.2% | -25.1% |
| Beta | 0.42 | 0.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | 1.24 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 49/100 | 54/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 52/100 | 50/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 77/100 | 80/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF vs Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF
SPHQ leads
SPHQ leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support SPHQ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPHQ over SMDV, 54 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPHQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. SPHQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPHQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. SPHQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ProShares S&P SmallCap 600 Dividend Aristocrats ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SMDV vs SPHQ: 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 | SPHQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.4% | 0.2% | SPHQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 101 | 103 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 12.1% | 43.2% | SMDV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.39% | 1.03% | SMDV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -21.2% | -25.1% | SMDV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.9% | 14.7% | Similar |
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 SPHQ 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 61SPHQ +19
- Risk Resilience77 vs 80Even
- Momentum52 vs 50Even
- Value40 vs 39Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor SPHQ. SPHQ’s edge is concentrated in quality.
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, 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.
SPHQ's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SMDV and SPHQ 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 | SMDV | SPHQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.2% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 101 | 103 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 99,719 | 1,467,307 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.9% | 14.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.8% | -9.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 0.75 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.42 | 0.93 | 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
SMDV and SPHQ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
100 holdings are unique to SMDV, and 100 holdings are unique to SPHQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SPHQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 43.16% of the fund, against 12.09% for SMDV (103 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 SPHQ doesn’t
| Holding | SMDV | SPHQ |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SPHQ adds that SMDV doesn’t
| Holding | SPHQ | SMDV |
|---|---|---|
| MAMastercard Inc | 5.8% | Not held |
| AAPLApple Inc | 5.8% | Not held |
| VVisa Inc | 5.75% | Not held |
| NFLXNetflix Inc | 3.98% | Not held |
| GEVGE Vernova Inc | 3.94% | Not held |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp | 3.83% | 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 SPHQ: five-year payout growth
SMDV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 7.62% a year against SPHQ's 4.48%.
| Dividend metric | SMDV | SPHQ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 7.62% | 4.48% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.220 | $0.655 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.761 | $0.815 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 3 |
| Peer rank | #10 of 33 | #103 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
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPHQ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPHQ | 49 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 40 vs 39 |
| Technicals | SPHQ | Price vs 50-day -2.4% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day -0.2% vs 2.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 77 vs 80 |
| 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 SPHQ 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SPHQ.
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20SPHQ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPHQ +5
- 49 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- SPHQ +8
- 46 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- SPHQ +12
- 42 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- SPHQ +1
- 54 vs 55
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when SPHQ 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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only SMDV
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SPHQ
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
SPHQ 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.3%, AIQ 0 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 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPHQ's edge.
- 2SMDV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SPHQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate SPHQ'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
SPHQ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SMDV | SPHQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.7% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.1% | 5.9% |
| Year to date | 10.6% | 12.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.6% | 15.5% |
Technicals
SPHQ has the stronger structure| Metric | SMDV | SPHQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.7 | 52.3 |
| ADX (14) | 29.3 | 16.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.4% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.2% | 2.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.9% | 9.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SMDV | SPHQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.42 | 0.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | 1.24 |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -9.2% |
| Current drawdown | -7.6% | -6.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.9% | 14.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SMDV and SPHQ?
SMDV and SPHQ have little in common: 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SMDV and SPHQ overlap?
SMDV and SPHQ share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings. 100 holdings are unique to SMDV, and 100 holdings are unique to SPHQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SMDV or SPHQ?
They hold a similar number of positions: 101 for SMDV and 103 for SPHQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPHQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.2% a year against 0.4% for SMDV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SMDV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.39% against 1.03% for SPHQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 13.9% annualized for SMDV and 14.7% for SPHQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SMDV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -21.2% against -25.1% for SPHQ.
Compare SMDV and SPHQ 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.