SPSM vs VB: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SPSM and VB are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SPSM is State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 600 Small Cap ETF, while VB is Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF. VB is broader by holdings count, with 1,314 positions versus 610 for SPSM. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPSM ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 60.
What is the main difference between SPSM and VB?
SPSM and VB have little in common: 19% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SPSM | VB |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 610 | 1,314 |
| Top-10 concentration | 5.4% | 4.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.54% | 1.27% |
| Average volume | 1,794,484 | 510,292 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.5% | +13.8% |
| YTD return | +14.2% | +11.7% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +5.5% | +6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 15.8% | 15.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10% | -9.3% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -27.9% | -28.2% |
| Beta | 0.94 | 1.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.81 | 0.65 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.42 | 1.07 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 54/100 | 54/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 82/100 | 80/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 600 Small Cap ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF
SPSM leads
SPSM leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support SPSM, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 600 Small Cap ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPSM over VB, 61 versus 60 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value. SPSM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPSM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. SPSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 600 Small Cap ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Small-Cap ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SPSM vs VB: 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 | SPSM | VB | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 610 | 1,314 | VB |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 5.4% | 4.1% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.54% | 1.27% | SPSM |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -27.9% | -28.2% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 15.8% | 15.9% | Similar |
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 SPSM and VB 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.
- Value57 vs 51SPSM +6
- Quality61 vs 64Even
- Risk Resilience82 vs 80Even
- Momentum54 vs 54Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor SPSM. SPSM’s edge is concentrated in value.
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 +16
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +15
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
SPSM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPSM and VB 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 | SPSM | VB | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 610 | 1,314 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 1,794,484 | 510,292 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 15.8% | 15.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10% | -9.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.81 | 0.65 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.94 | 1.03 | 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
SPSM and VB share 19.02% of their weighted exposure across 480 common holdings.
128 holdings are unique to SPSM, and 825 holdings are unique to VB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SPSM is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 5.43% of the fund, against 4.08% for VB (610 holdings vs 1,314). 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 | SPSM | VB | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| CORTCORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC | 0.63% | 0.13% | 0.13% |
| GKOSGLAUKOS CORP | 0.57% | 0.12% | 0.12% |
| VSATVIASAT INC | 0.57% | 0.12% | 0.12% |
| EATBRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC | 0.53% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| PTGXPROTAGONIST THERAPEUTICS INC | 0.5% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| JXNJACKSON FINANCIAL INC A | 0.55% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| LNCLINCOLN NATIONAL CORP | 0.42% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
| MTCHMATCH GROUP INC | 0.56% | 0.11% | 0.11% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SPSM adds that VB doesn’t
| Holding | SPSM | VB |
|---|---|---|
| CORTCORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC | 0.63% | 0.13% |
| VSATVIASAT INC | 0.57% | 0.12% |
| GKOSGLAUKOS CORP | 0.57% | 0.12% |
| MTCHMATCH GROUP INC | 0.56% | 0.11% |
| JXNJACKSON FINANCIAL INC A | 0.55% | 0.11% |
| EATBRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC | 0.53% | 0.11% |
What VB adds that SPSM doesn’t
| Holding | VB | SPSM |
|---|---|---|
| RVMDRevolution Medicines Inc | 0.47% | Not held |
| NTRANatera Inc | 0.45% | Not held |
| EMEEMCOR Group Inc | 0.44% | Not held |
| CRDOCredo Technology Group Holding Ltd | 0.43% | Not held |
| JBLJabil Inc | 0.41% | Not held |
| CASYCasey's General Stores Inc | 0.4% | 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.
SPSM vs VB: five-year payout growth
SPSM grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 12.59% a year against VB's 9.10%. SPSM: The 2020 payout was 19.1% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. SPSM: The payout jumped 50.1% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | SPSM | VB |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 12.59% | 9.10% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.418 | $2.225 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.757 | $3.439 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #45 of 138 | #63 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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPSM. 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 | 61 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SPSM | Value 57 vs 51 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day 0.7% vs 0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 82 vs 80 |
| 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 SPSM and VB 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 been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 SPSM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SPSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPSM +1
- 61 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- SPSM +1
- 59 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- SPSM +1
- 56 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 64 vs 64
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when SPSM moved ahead of VB.
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 / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only SPSM
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 +0.06%, AIQ +4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.44%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1VB closes the Value gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPSM's edge.
- 2VB's ATR Contraction - Coiling turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SPSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
SPSM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SPSM | VB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.6% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.8% | 1.4% |
| Year to date | 14.2% | 11.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.5% | 13.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SPSM | VB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.7 | 55.8 |
| ADX (14) | 40.3 | 35.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.7% | 0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.1% | 13.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SPSM | VB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.94 | 1.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.81 | 0.65 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.42 | 1.07 |
| Max drawdown | -10% | -9.3% |
| Current drawdown | -8.5% | -6.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.8% | 15.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.5% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SPSM and VB?
SPSM and VB have little in common: 19% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SPSM and VB overlap?
SPSM and VB share 19.02% of their weighted exposure across 480 common holdings. 128 holdings are unique to SPSM, and 825 holdings are unique to VB. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPSM or VB?
VB holds more positions: 1,314 versus 610 for SPSM.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.03% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SPSM, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.54% against 1.27% for VB.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 15.8% annualized for SPSM and 15.9% for VB.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -27.9% for SPSM and -28.2% for VB.
Compare SPSM and VB 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.