SMH vs SOXX: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SMH and SOXX are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SMH is VanEck Semiconductor ETF, while SOXX is iShares Semiconductor ETF. SMH is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SMH ahead on AIQ Score, 39 versus 36.
| Metric | SMH | SOXX |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.33% |
| Holdings | 27 | 33 |
| Top-10 concentration | 71.6% | 62.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.2% | 0.25% |
| Average volume | 9,343,290 | 8,752,412 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +59.9% | +73.9% |
| YTD return | +51.7% | +66% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +33.4% | +27.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 39.7% | 46% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -24.6% | -29% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -45.3% | -45.8% |
| Beta | 2.38 | 2.62 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.28 | 1.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.88 | 1.97 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 39/100 | 36/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 2/10 | 2/10 |
| Momentum | 15/100 | 15/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 29/100 | 23/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
VanEck Semiconductor ETF vs iShares Semiconductor ETF
SMH leads
SMH leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support SMH, and its current signal state is conflicted.
VanEck Semiconductor ETF
iShares Semiconductor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SMH over SOXX, 39 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. SMH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. SMH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SMH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. SMH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare VanEck Semiconductor ETF and iShares Semiconductor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SMH vs SOXX: 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 | SMH | SOXX | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.35% | 0.33% | SOXX |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 27 | 33 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 71.6% | 62.6% | SOXX |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.2% | 0.25% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -45.3% | -45.8% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 39.7% | 46% | SMH |
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 SMH and SOXX 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.
- Value31 vs 25SMH +6
- Risk Resilience29 vs 23SMH +6
- Quality71 vs 70Even
- Momentum15 vs 15Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor SMH. SMH’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
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.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
SMH's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SMH and SOXX 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 | SMH | SOXX | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.35% | 0.33% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 27 | 33 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 9,343,290 | 8,752,412 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 39.7% | 46% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -24.6% | -29% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.28 | 1.35 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 2.38 | 2.62 | 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
SMH and SOXX share 72.44% of their weighted exposure across 23 common holdings.
2 holdings are unique to SMH, and 7 holdings are unique to SOXX. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
SMH is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 71.61% of the fund, against 62.57% for SOXX (27 holdings vs 33). 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 | SMH | SOXX | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 22.43% | 9.18% | 9.18% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 5.9% | 7.07% | 5.9% |
| AMDADVANCED MICRO DEVICES | 5.73% | 8.75% | 5.73% |
| MUMICRON TECHNOLOGY | 5.64% | 9.17% | 5.64% |
| TSMTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co L | 9.77% | 4.69% | 4.69% |
| INTCINTEL CORPORATION | 4.34% | 5.81% | 4.34% |
| LRCXLAM RESEARCH | 4.29% | 4.3% | 4.29% |
| AMATAPPLIED MATERIAL INC | 4.23% | 4.51% | 4.23% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SMH adds that SOXX doesn’t
| Holding | SMH | SOXX |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 22.43% | 9.18% |
| TSMTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co L | 9.77% | 4.69% |
| ASMLAsml Holding Nv | 5.01% | 2.42% |
| CDNSCadence Design Systems Inc | 1.91% | Not held |
| SNPSSynopsys Inc | 1.87% | Not held |
What SOXX adds that SMH doesn’t
| Holding | SOXX | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| TERTERADYNE | 3.22% | 1.34% |
| MPWRMONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS INC | 3.07% | 1.23% |
| NXPINXP SEMICONDUCTORS NV | 3.01% | 1.08% |
| ALABASTERA LABS | 2.27% | 0.88% |
| MCHPMICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC | 2.09% | 0.83% |
| CRDOCREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP HOLDING LTD | 1.5% | 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.
SMH vs SOXX: five-year payout growth
SOXX grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 10.93% a year against SMH's 8.02%. SMH: The 2020 payout was 64.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SMH: The payout jumped 52.6% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | SMH | SOXX |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 8.02% | 10.93% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.751 | $0.342 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.105 | $0.574 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #69 of 138 | #53 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 SMH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 39 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SMH | Value 31 vs 25 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -3.7% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day 6.5% vs 6.5% |
| Risk Resilience | SMH | Risk Resilience 29 vs 23 |
| 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 SMH and SOXX 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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)
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 SMH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SMH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SMH +3
- 39 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- SMH +3
- 38 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- SMH +3
- 56 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- SMH +6
- 56 vs 50
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when SMH moved ahead of SOXX.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SOXX
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.60%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, MACD Bearish Crossover.
SMH 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 +1.89%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.07%, 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.
- 1SOXX closes the Value gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to SMH's edge.
- 2SOXX's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SMH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
Split across windows| Metric | SMH | SOXX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.1% | -8.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.1% | -12.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.9% | -10% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.6% | 18.9% |
| Year to date | 51.7% | 66% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 59.9% | 73.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SMH | SOXX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27.7 | 24.2 |
| ADX (14) | 22.4 | 22 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.7% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.5% | 6.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.2% | 30% |
Risk
SMH is the more resilient| Metric | SMH | SOXX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.38 | 2.62 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.28 | 1.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.88 | 1.97 |
| Max drawdown | -24.6% | -29% |
| Current drawdown | -18.3% | -23.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.7% | 46% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do SMH and SOXX overlap?
SMH and SOXX share 72.44% of their weighted exposure across 23 common holdings. 2 holdings are unique to SMH, and 7 holdings are unique to SOXX. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.
Which ETF is more diversified, SMH or SOXX?
They hold a similar number of positions: 27 for SMH and 33 for SOXX.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SOXX has the lower expense ratio, 0.33% a year against 0.35% for SMH.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 0.2% for SMH and 0.25% for SOXX.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SOXX has been more volatile over the past year, at 46% annualized against 39.7% for SMH.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -45.3% for SMH and -45.8% for SOXX.
Compare SMH and SOXX 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.