SPHQ vs SPMO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SPHQ and SPMO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SPHQ is Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF, while SPMO is Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF. SPMO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPHQ ahead on AIQ Score, 54 versus 50.
What is the main difference between SPHQ and SPMO?
SPMO puts 53% of its assets in Technology, while SPHQ spreads across 9 sectors with none above 40%.
| Metric | SPHQ | SPMO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.2% | 0.13% |
| Holdings | 103 | 103 |
| Top-10 concentration | 43.2% | 51.9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.03% | 0.78% |
| Average volume | 1,467,307 | 2,078,400 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +15.5% | +18.1% |
| YTD return | +12.4% | +19% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.8% | +18.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 14.7% | 24.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -15.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -25.1% | -22.7% |
| Beta | 0.93 | 1.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.75 | 0.63 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.24 | 0.91 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 54/100 | 50/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 50/100 | 27/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 80/100 | 70/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF vs Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF
SPHQ leads
SPHQ leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from SPMO.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SPHQ, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF
Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPHQ over SPMO, 54 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPHQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while SPMO holds the stronger value profile. SPHQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPHQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. SPHQ lead: Reversed — SPMO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SPHQ now leads by 4.
Compare Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SPHQ vs SPMO: 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 | SPHQ | SPMO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.2% | 0.13% | SPMO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 103 | 103 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 43.2% | 51.9% | SPHQ |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.03% | 0.78% | SPHQ |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -25.1% | -22.7% | SPMO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 14.7% | 24.9% | SPHQ |
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 SPHQ and SPMO 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.
- Momentum50 vs 27SPHQ +23
- Risk Resilience80 vs 70SPHQ +10
- Value39 vs 46SPMO +7
- Quality61 vs 62Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SPHQ. SPHQ’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; SPMO keeps a meaningful value 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 +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.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
SPHQ's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPHQ and SPMO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPHQ (Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
SPMO (Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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 | SPHQ | SPMO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.2% | 0.13% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 103 | 103 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,467,307 | 2,078,400 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 14.7% | 24.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.2% | -15.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.75 | 0.63 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.93 | 1.52 | 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
SPHQ and SPMO share 21.57% of their weighted exposure across 25 common holdings.
75 holdings are unique to SPHQ, and 75 holdings are unique to SPMO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SPMO is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 51.89% of the fund, against 43.16% for SPHQ (103 holdings vs 103). 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 | SPHQ | SPMO | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 3.72% | 3.38% | 3.38% |
| SNDKSandisk Corp | 3.22% | 2.51% | 2.51% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc | 3.62% | 1.84% | 1.84% |
| AMATApplied Materials Inc | 2.21% | 1.82% | 1.82% |
| GEGeneral Electric Co | 3.51% | 1.67% | 1.67% |
| WDCWestern Digital Corp | 2.45% | 1.56% | 1.56% |
| STXSeagate Technology Holdings PLC | 1.44% | 1.88% | 1.44% |
| KLACKLA Corp | 2.23% | 1.31% | 1.31% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SPHQ adds that SPMO doesn’t
| Holding | SPHQ | SPMO |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | 1.3% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp | 3.83% | Not held |
What SPMO adds that SPHQ doesn’t
| Holding | SPMO | SPHQ |
|---|---|---|
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 11.01% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.92% | Not held |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 6.24% | Not held |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 4.64% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 4.29% | Not held |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 4.12% | 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.
SPHQ vs SPMO: five-year payout growth
SPMO grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.46% a year against SPHQ's 4.48%. SPMO: The payout jumped 180.5% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | SPHQ | SPMO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 4.48% | 5.46% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.655 | $0.669 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.815 | $0.873 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #103 of 138 | #90 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
3 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 | 54 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SPMO | Value 39 vs 46 |
| Technicals | SPHQ | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -3.9%; vs 200-day 2.3% vs 3.5% |
| Risk Resilience | SPHQ | Risk Resilience 80 vs 70 |
| 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 SPHQ and SPMO 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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
41 daily snapshots · Sep 8 – Oct 20SPHQ lead: Reversed — SPMO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SPHQ now leads by 4.
- Today
- SPHQ +4
- 54 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- SPHQ +5
- 54 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- SPMO +2
- 54 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when SPHQ moved ahead of SPMO.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SPHQ
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.02%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only SPMO
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.85%, 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.
- 1SPMO closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPHQ's edge.
- 2SPMO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SPHQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 | SPHQ | SPMO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | -4.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.8% | -7.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.9% | -5.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.9% | 12.1% |
| Year to date | 12.4% | 19% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.5% | 18.1% |
Technicals
SPHQ has the stronger structure| Metric | SPHQ | SPMO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.3 | 19.5 |
| ADX (14) | 16.1 | 23.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -3.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.3% | 3.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.6% | 13.9% |
Risk
SPHQ is the more resilient| Metric | SPHQ | SPMO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.93 | 1.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.75 | 0.63 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.24 | 0.91 |
| Max drawdown | -9.2% | -15.6% |
| Current drawdown | -6.4% | -12.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 14.7% | 24.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SPHQ and SPMO?
SPMO puts 53% of its assets in Technology, while SPHQ spreads across 9 sectors with none above 40%.
How much do SPHQ and SPMO overlap?
SPHQ and SPMO share 21.57% of their weighted exposure across 25 common holdings. 75 holdings are unique to SPHQ, and 75 holdings are unique to SPMO. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPHQ or SPMO?
They hold a similar number of positions: 103 for SPHQ and 103 for SPMO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPMO has the lower expense ratio, 0.13% a year against 0.2% for SPHQ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SPHQ, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.03% against 0.78% for SPMO.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SPMO has been more volatile over the past year, at 24.9% annualized against 14.7% for SPHQ.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPMO fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -22.7% against -25.1% for SPHQ.
Compare SPHQ and SPMO 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.