SPLV vs SPYG: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SPLV and SPYG are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SPLV is Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF, while SPYG is State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF. SPYG is broader by holdings count, with 150 positions versus 108 for SPLV. SPYG is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPLV ahead on AIQ Score, 70 versus 47.
What is the main difference between SPLV and SPYG?
SPYG puts 53% of its assets in Technology, while SPLV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 27%.
| Metric | SPLV | SPYG |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 108 | 150 |
| Top-10 concentration | 12.6% | 59.9% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.15% | 0.52% |
| Average volume | 2,130,264 | 2,437,363 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +8.6% | +4.8% |
| YTD return | +7.6% | +5.1% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6% | +10.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.1% | 19.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.6% | -13.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -17.3% | -32.7% |
| Beta | 0.05 | 1.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.22 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 0.31 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 70/100 | 47/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 10/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 76/100 | 24/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 60/100 | 62/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF vs State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF
SPLV leads
SPLV leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 3 evidence groups support SPLV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPLV over SPYG, 70 versus 47 as of Nov 7, 2026. SPLV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum. SPLV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SPLV today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SPLV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF and State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SPLV vs SPYG: 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 | SPLV | SPYG | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.25% | 0.04% | SPYG |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 108 | 150 | SPYG |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 12.6% | 59.9% | SPLV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.15% | 0.52% | SPLV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -17.3% | -32.7% | SPLV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.1% | 19.5% | SPLV |
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 SPLV and SPYG 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.
- Momentum76 vs 24SPLV +52
- Quality69 vs 66Even
- Risk Resilience60 vs 62Even
2 of 3 evidence groups favor SPLV. SPLV’s edge is concentrated in momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
SPLV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPLV and SPYG 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 | SPLV | SPYG | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 108 | 150 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,130,264 | 2,437,363 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.1% | 19.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.6% | -13.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.22 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.05 | 1.37 | 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
SPLV and SPYG share 7.39% of their weighted exposure across 18 common holdings.
83 holdings are unique to SPLV, and 130 holdings are unique to SPYG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SPYG is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 59.85% of the fund, against 12.58% for SPLV (150 holdings vs 108). 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 | SPLV | SPYG | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CL B | 1.38% | 2.61% | 1.38% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 1.14% | 1.06% | 1.06% |
| VVisa Inc | 0.95% | 0.94% | 0.94% |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE + CO | 0.89% | 1.81% | 0.89% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 0.93% | 0.86% | 0.86% |
| WELLWelltower Inc | 0.94% | 0.47% | 0.47% |
| KOCoca-Cola Co/The | 1.11% | 0.4% | 0.4% |
| TJXTJX Cos Inc/The | 0.86% | 0.22% | 0.22% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SPLV adds that SPYG doesn’t
| Holding | SPLV | SPYG |
|---|---|---|
| REGRegency Centers Corp | 1.28% | Not held |
| FEFirstEnergy Corp | 1.27% | Not held |
| DUKDuke Energy Corp | 1.26% | Not held |
| WECWEC Energy Group Inc | 1.26% | Not held |
| EVRGEvergy Inc | 1.25% | Not held |
| ATOAtmos Energy Corp | 1.24% | Not held |
What SPYG adds that SPLV doesn’t
| Holding | SPYG | SPLV |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 14.85% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 10.27% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 6.73% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A | 5.47% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.8% | Not held |
| GOOGALPHABET INC CL C | 4.38% | 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 SPLV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPLV | 70 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | SPLV | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs -7.5%; vs 200-day 3.3% vs -1.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 62 |
| 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 SPLV and SPYG 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 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 SPLV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6SPLV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPLV +23
- 70 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- SPLV +21
- 71 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- SPLV +9
- 65 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- SPLV +2
- 58 vs 56
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when SPYG moved ahead of SPLV.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SPLV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.90%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.28%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only SPYG
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.92%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
SPLV 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.93%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.91%, 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.
- 1SPYG closes the Momentum gap — currently 52 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPLV's edge.
- 2SPYG's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SPLV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
SPLV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SPLV | SPYG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | -3.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.6% | -8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | -8.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.8% | -4.6% |
| Year to date | 7.6% | 5.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.6% | 4.8% |
Technicals
SPLV has the stronger structure| Metric | SPLV | SPYG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.3 | 31.5 |
| ADX (14) | 41 | 31.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | -7.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.3% | -1.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.8% | 27.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SPLV | SPYG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.05 | 1.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.22 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 0.31 |
| Max drawdown | -9.6% | -13.5% |
| Current drawdown | -2.1% | -11.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.1% | 19.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SPLV and SPYG?
SPYG puts 53% of its assets in Technology, while SPLV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 27%.
How much do SPLV and SPYG overlap?
SPLV and SPYG share 7.39% of their weighted exposure across 18 common holdings. 83 holdings are unique to SPLV, and 130 holdings are unique to SPYG. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPLV or SPYG?
SPYG holds more positions: 150 versus 108 for SPLV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPYG has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.25% for SPLV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SPLV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.15% against 0.52% for SPYG.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SPYG has been more volatile over the past year, at 19.5% annualized against 11.1% for SPLV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPLV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17.3% against -32.7% for SPYG.
Compare SPLV and SPYG 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.