SPMO vs TDIV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SPMO and TDIV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SPMO is Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF, while TDIV is First Trust NASDAQ Technology Dividend Index Fund. SPMO has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has TDIV ahead on AIQ Score, 51 versus 50.
What is the main difference between SPMO and TDIV?
SPMO and TDIV both concentrate in Technology, at 53% and 84% of assets, and 16% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SPMO | TDIV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.13% | 0.5% |
| Holdings | 103 | 95 |
| Top-10 concentration | 51.9% | 50.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.78% | 1.4% |
| Average volume | 2,078,400 | 162,186 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +18.1% | +13.3% |
| YTD return | +19% | +17% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +18.6% | +16.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 24.9% | 20.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.6% | -16.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -22.7% | -32% |
| Beta | 1.52 | 1.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.63 | 0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 0.83 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 50/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 27/100 | 49/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 70/100 | 66/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF vs First Trust NASDAQ Technology Dividend Index Fund
TDIV leads
TDIV leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from SPMO.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support TDIV, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF
First Trust NASDAQ Technology Dividend Index Fund
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TDIV over SPMO, 51 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. TDIV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while SPMO holds the stronger quality profile. TDIV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor TDIV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. TDIV lead: Reversed — SPMO led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TDIV now leads by 1.
Compare Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF and First Trust NASDAQ Technology Dividend Index Fund across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SPMO vs TDIV: 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 | SPMO | TDIV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.13% | 0.5% | SPMO |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 103 | 95 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 51.9% | 50.6% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.78% | 1.4% | TDIV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -22.7% | -32% | SPMO |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 24.9% | 20.6% | TDIV |
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 SPMO and TDIV 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.
- Momentum27 vs 49TDIV +22
- Quality62 vs 49SPMO +13
- Risk Resilience70 vs 66SPMO +4
- Value46 vs 48Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor TDIV. TDIV’s edge is concentrated in momentum; SPMO keeps a meaningful quality 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: Risk Resilience +1
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 3 active signals are unchanged.
TDIV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPMO and TDIV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TDIV (First Trust NASDAQ Technology Dividend Index Fund): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
SPMO (Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF): the counter-case, on quality, 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 | SPMO | TDIV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.13% | 0.5% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 103 | 95 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,078,400 | 162,186 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 24.9% | 20.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -15.6% | -16.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.63 | 0.54 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.52 | 1.35 | 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
SPMO and TDIV share 15.78% of their weighted exposure across 11 common holdings.
89 holdings are unique to SPMO, and 82 holdings are unique to TDIV. 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 50.56% for TDIV (103 holdings vs 95). 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 | SPMO | TDIV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc. | 6.24% | 6.75% | 6.24% |
| CSCOCisco Systems, Inc. | 1.84% | 1.99% | 1.84% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 1.82% | 2.07% | 1.82% |
| APHAmphenol Corporation | 1.43% | 1.65% | 1.43% |
| KLACKLA Corporation | 1.31% | 1.33% | 1.31% |
| STXSeagate Technology Holdings PLC | 1.88% | 0.91% | 0.91% |
| GLWCorning Incorporated | 0.87% | 1.2% | 0.87% |
| ADIAnalog Devices, Inc. | 0.73% | 2.66% | 0.73% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SPMO adds that TDIV doesn’t
| Holding | SPMO | TDIV |
|---|---|---|
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 11.01% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.92% | Not held |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 4.64% | Not held |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 4.29% | Not held |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 4.12% | Not held |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 3.42% | Not held |
What TDIV adds that SPMO doesn’t
| Holding | TDIV | SPMO |
|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corporation | 9.6% | Not held |
| IBMInternational Business Machines Corporation | 6.93% | Not held |
| TXNTexas Instruments Incorporated | 6.19% | Not held |
| ORCLOracle Corporation | 5.56% | Not held |
| TSMTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (ADR) | 4.46% | Not held |
| QCOMQUALCOMM Incorporated | 3.26% | 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.
SPMO vs TDIV: five-year payout growth
TDIV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.79% a year against SPMO's 5.46%. SPMO: The payout jumped 180.5% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | SPMO | TDIV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.46% | 5.79% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.669 | $1.027 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.873 | $1.361 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #90 of 138 | #14 of 33 |
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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor TDIV. 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 | 50 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 46 vs 48 |
| Technicals | TDIV | Price vs 50-day -3.9% vs -0.3%; vs 200-day 3.5% vs 4.9% |
| Risk Resilience | SPMO | Risk Resilience 70 vs 66 |
| 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 SPMO and TDIV 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 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 TDIV.
How the comparison changed
41 daily snapshots · Sep 8 – Oct 20TDIV lead: Reversed — SPMO led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TDIV now leads by 1.
- Today
- TDIV +1
- 50 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- TDIV +2
- 49 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- SPMO +7
- 56 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 18 when SPMO moved ahead of TDIV.
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
Only SPMO
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TDIV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
TDIV 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.85%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.98%, 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.
- 1SPMO closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to TDIV's edge.
- 2SPMO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3TDIV'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 | SPMO | TDIV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.1% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.4% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.4% | 3.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.1% | 7.3% |
| Year to date | 19% | 17% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.1% | 13.3% |
Technicals
TDIV has the stronger structure| Metric | SPMO | TDIV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 19.5 | 51.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.5 | 10.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.9% | -0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.5% | 4.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.9% | 18.1% |
Risk
SPMO is the more resilient| Metric | SPMO | TDIV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.52 | 1.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.63 | 0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 0.83 |
| Max drawdown | -15.6% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | -12.2% | -11.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.9% | 20.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SPMO and TDIV?
SPMO and TDIV both concentrate in Technology, at 53% and 84% of assets, and 16% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SPMO and TDIV overlap?
SPMO and TDIV share 15.78% of their weighted exposure across 11 common holdings. 89 holdings are unique to SPMO, and 82 holdings are unique to TDIV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPMO or TDIV?
They hold a similar number of positions: 103 for SPMO and 95 for TDIV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPMO has the lower expense ratio, 0.13% a year against 0.5% for TDIV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
TDIV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.4% 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 20.6% for TDIV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPMO fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -22.7% against -32% for TDIV.
Compare SPMO and TDIV 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.