SPLV vs USMV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SPLV and USMV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SPLV is Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF, while USMV is iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF. USMV is broader by holdings count, with 176 positions versus 108 for SPLV. USMV has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPLV ahead on AIQ Score, 70 versus 67.
What is the main difference between SPLV and USMV?
SPLV and USMV have little in common: 29% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SPLV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 108 | 176 |
| Top-10 concentration | 12.6% | 15.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.15% | 1.39% |
| Average volume | 2,130,264 | 1,957,599 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +8.6% | +8.9% |
| YTD return | +7.6% | +7.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6% | +7.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.1% | 9.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.6% | -6.8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -17.3% | -17.9% |
| Beta | 0.05 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 0.94 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 70/100 | 67/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 10/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 76/100 | 61/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 60/100 | 68/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF vs iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
SPLV leads
SPLV leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from USMV.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support SPLV, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPLV over USMV, 70 versus 67 as of Nov 7, 2026. SPLV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while USMV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SPLV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor SPLV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. SPLV lead: Reversed — USMV led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SPLV now leads by 3.
Compare Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SPLV vs USMV: 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 | USMV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.25% | 0.15% | USMV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 108 | 176 | USMV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 12.6% | 15.1% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.15% | 1.39% | SPLV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -17.3% | -17.9% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.1% | 9.2% | USMV |
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 USMV 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 61SPLV +15
- Risk Resilience60 vs 68USMV +8
- Quality69 vs 72Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor SPLV. SPLV’s edge is concentrated in momentum; USMV keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
SPLV's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPLV and USMV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPLV (Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
USMV (iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor 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 | SPLV | USMV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 108 | 176 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,130,264 | 1,957,599 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.1% | 9.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -9.6% | -6.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.62 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.05 | 0.37 | 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 USMV share 28.98% of their weighted exposure across 44 common holdings.
57 holdings are unique to SPLV, and 129 holdings are unique to USMV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
USMV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 15.08% of the fund, against 12.58% for SPLV (176 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 | USMV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CLASS B | 1.38% | 1.45% | 1.38% |
| DUKDUKE ENERGY CORP | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.26% |
| EDCONSOLIDATED EDISON | 1.17% | 1.21% | 1.17% |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 1.14% | 1.49% | 1.14% |
| SOSOUTHERN | 1.14% | 1.34% | 1.14% |
| RSGREPUBLIC SERVICES INC | 1.13% | 1.29% | 1.13% |
| KOCOCA-COLA | 1.11% | 1.27% | 1.11% |
| CBCHUBB | 1.05% | 1.48% | 1.05% |
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 USMV doesn’t
| Holding | SPLV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| REGRegency Centers Corp | 1.28% | Not held |
| FEFirstEnergy Corp | 1.27% | Not held |
| EVRGEvergy Inc | 1.25% | Not held |
| ATOAtmos Energy Corp | 1.24% | 0.06% |
| LNTAlliant Energy Corp | 1.22% | Not held |
| LLoews Corp | 1.21% | 0.35% |
What USMV adds that SPLV doesn’t
| Holding | USMV | SPLV |
|---|---|---|
| APHAMPHENOL CORP CLASS A | 1.59% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA | 1.57% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 1.55% | Not held |
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 1.48% | Not held |
| VZVERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC | 1.48% | Not held |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 1.46% | 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
1 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 | Even | 70 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | SPLV | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day 3.3% vs 4.1% |
| Risk Resilience | USMV | Risk Resilience 60 vs 68 |
| 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 USMV 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 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (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 SPLV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6SPLV lead: Reversed — USMV led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SPLV now leads by 3.
- Today
- SPLV +3
- 70 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- USMV +4
- 71 vs 75
- 30 sessions ago
- USMV +10
- 65 vs 75
- 90 sessions ago
- USMV +11
- 58 vs 69
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Nov 5 when SPLV moved ahead of USMV.
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.90%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only USMV
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.47%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity.
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 down over the latest session (price -0.51%, 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.
- 1USMV closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPLV's edge.
- 2USMV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SPLV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.6% | 0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | 0.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.8% | 7.7% |
| Year to date | 7.6% | 7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.6% | 8.9% |
Technicals
SPLV has the stronger structure| Metric | SPLV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.3 | 49.8 |
| ADX (14) | 41 | 35.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.3% | 4.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.8% | 12.4% |
Risk
USMV is the more resilient| Metric | SPLV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.05 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -9.6% | -6.8% |
| Current drawdown | -2.1% | -3.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.1% | 9.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1% | -0.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SPLV and USMV?
SPLV and USMV have little in common: 29% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SPLV and USMV overlap?
SPLV and USMV share 28.98% of their weighted exposure across 44 common holdings. 57 holdings are unique to SPLV, and 129 holdings are unique to USMV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPLV or USMV?
USMV holds more positions: 176 versus 108 for SPLV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
USMV has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% 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 1.39% for USMV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
SPLV has been more volatile over the past year, at 11.1% annualized against 9.2% for USMV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -17.3% for SPLV and -17.9% for USMV.
Compare SPLV and USMV 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.