SPY vs TMF ETF Comparison
Compare SPY and TMF across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between SPY and TMF?
SPY is State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF, while TMF is Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF. SPY is tied to Equity; TMF is tied to Fixed Income. SPY is broader by holdings count, with 504 positions versus 1 for TMF. SPY is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | SPY | TMF | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 1.01% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $817.3B | $2.2B | Fund |
| Holdings | 504 | 1 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 58.4% | 39% | Fund |
| Average volume | 73,651,172 | 7,547,530 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Fixed Income | Fund |
| 1Y return | +20.8% | -14.9% | Performance |
| YTD return | +13.4% | -17.6% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 27.4% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -32.4% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.00 | 0.52 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.19 | -0.71 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.69 | -1.14 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 64/100 | 44/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 2/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 56/100 | 43/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 89/100 | 31/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF vs Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF
SPY leads
SPY leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 28 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support SPY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPY over TMF, 64 versus 44 as of Sep 5, 2026. SPY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. SPY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. SPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 28 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF and Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare SPY and TMF 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.
- Risk Resilience15%89 vs 31SPY +58
- Quality30%84 vs 60SPY +24
- Momentum25%56 vs 43SPY +13
- Value30%39 vs 36Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor SPY. SPY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
SPY's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPY and TMF both carry a full feed there.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
SPYSPY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
SPYSPY on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
SPYSPY on Risk Resilience, by 58 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | SPY | TMF | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.09% | 1.01% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $817.3B | $2.2B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 504 | 13 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 73,651,172 | 7,547,530 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 27.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -32.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.19 | -0.71 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.00 | 0.52 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
SPY and TMF share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
SPY is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 58.42% of the fund, against 38.96% for TMF (504 holdings vs 1). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
504 holdings are unique to SPY and 1 to TMF. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPY or TMF?
SPY currently has more reported holdings, with 504 positions versus 1.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPY has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TMF has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPY has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
SPY currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 64 to 44.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPY | 64 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 39 vs 36 |
| Technicals | SPY | Price vs 50-day 1.9% vs -4.2%; vs 200-day 8.6% vs -14.4% |
| Risk Resilience | SPY | Risk Resilience 89 vs 31 |
| 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 SPY and TMF 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 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 SPY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3SPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 28 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPY +20
- 64 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- SPY +19
- 64 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- SPY +28
- 71 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- SPY +11
- 60 vs 49
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.25%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.7%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.51%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
SPY 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 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.39%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.36%, 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.
- 1TMF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 58 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge.
- 2TMF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SPY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 20-point move would eliminate SPY's advantage entirely.
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
SPY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SPY | TMF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.3% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.6% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.1% | -12.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 13.5% | -22% |
| Year to date | 13.4% | -17.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20.8% | -14.9% |
Technicals
SPY has the stronger structure| Metric | SPY | TMF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.9 | 51.3 |
| ADX (14) | 13.4 | 16.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.9% | -4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.6% | -14.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 8.3% | 30.6% |
Risk
SPY is the more resilient| Metric | SPY | TMF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.19 | -0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.69 | -1.14 |
| Max drawdown | -9.1% | -32.4% |
| Current drawdown | -0.6% | -30.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 12.8% | 27.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SPY or TMF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SPY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 64 against TMF's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is SPY or TMF the better buy right now?
SPY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SPY over TMF?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SPY leads Risk Resilience by 58 points; SPY leads Quality by 24 points; SPY leads Momentum by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, SPY or TMF?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, SPY or TMF?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, SPY or TMF?
SPY on the Momentum factor, by 13 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, SPY or TMF?
SPY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPY on Risk Resilience, by 58 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is SPY more profitable than TMF?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is SPY's lead over TMF getting stronger or weaker?
SPY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 28 to 20 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the SPY vs TMF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 58 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge; TMF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SPY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 20-point move would eliminate SPY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SPY and TMF?
SPY: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TMF: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on SPY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TMF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SPY and TMF with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.