SPYG vs SPYV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SPYG and SPYV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SPYG is State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF, while SPYV is State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF. SPYV is broader by holdings count, with 440 positions versus 150 for SPYG. SPYG is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SPYV ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 47.
What is the main difference between SPYG and SPYV?
SPYG puts 53% of its assets in Technology, while SPYV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
| Metric | SPYG | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 150 | 440 |
| Top-10 concentration | 59.9% | 24.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.52% | 1.68% |
| Average volume | 2,437,363 | 2,282,631 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +4.8% | +13% |
| YTD return | +5.1% | +11% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.3% | +11% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.5% | 10.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.5% | -6.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.7% | -17.9% |
| Beta | 1.37 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.94 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 1.36 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 60/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 62/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 78/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF vs State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF
SPYV leads
SPYV leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support SPYV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPYV over SPYG, 60 versus 47 as of Nov 7, 2026. SPYV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. SPYV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPYV today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SPYV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF and State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SPYG vs SPYV: 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 | SPYG | SPYV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.04% | 0.04% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 150 | 440 | SPYV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 59.9% | 24.1% | SPYV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.52% | 1.68% | SPYV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.7% | -17.9% | SPYV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.5% | 10.1% | SPYV |
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 SPYG and SPYV 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.
- Momentum24 vs 62SPYV +38
- Risk Resilience62 vs 78SPYV +16
- Value41 vs 45SPYV +4
- Quality66 vs 65Even
4 of 4 evidence groups favor SPYV. SPYV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Value +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
SPYV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPYG and SPYV 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 | SPYG | SPYV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 150 | 440 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,437,363 | 2,282,631 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.5% | 10.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.5% | -6.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.94 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.37 | 0.57 | 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
SPYG and SPYV share 25.49% of their weighted exposure across 82 common holdings.
66 holdings are unique to SPYG, and 356 holdings are unique to SPYV. 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 24.06% for SPYV (150 holdings vs 440). 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 | SPYG | SPYV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 6.73% | 8.06% | 6.73% |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.67% | 3.9% | 3.67% |
| TSLATESLA INC | 1.78% | 1.31% | 1.31% |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE + CO | 1.81% | 1.02% | 1.02% |
| VVISA INC CLASS A SHARES | 0.94% | 0.92% | 0.92% |
| JNJJOHNSON + JOHNSON | 1.06% | 0.88% | 0.88% |
| CSCOCISCO SYSTEMS INC | 0.63% | 0.67% | 0.63% |
| ABBVABBVIE INC | 0.58% | 0.82% | 0.58% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SPYG adds that SPYV doesn’t
| Holding | SPYG | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 14.85% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 10.27% | Not held |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A | 5.47% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.8% | Not held |
| GOOGALPHABET INC CL C | 4.38% | Not held |
| METAMETA PLATFORMS INC CLASS A | 3.97% | Not held |
What SPYV adds that SPYG doesn’t
| Holding | SPYV | SPYG |
|---|---|---|
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 2.3% | Not held |
| INTCINTEL CORP | 1.67% | Not held |
| WMTWALMART INC | 1.56% | Not held |
| BACBANK OF AMERICA CORP | 1.37% | Not held |
| COSTCOSTCO WHOLESALE CORP | 1.35% | Not held |
| CVXCHEVRON CORP | 1.34% | 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.
SPYG vs SPYV: five-year payout growth
SPYV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 4.13% a year against SPYG's 2.16%. SPYG: The 2020 payout was 13.3% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | SPYG | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 2.16% | 4.13% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.496 | $0.819 |
| 2025 annual payout | $0.552 | $1.003 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 3 |
| Peer rank | #119 of 138 | #106 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
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPYV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPYV | 47 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | SPYV | Value 41 vs 45 |
| Technicals | SPYV | Price vs 50-day -7.5% vs 0.2%; vs 200-day -1.7% vs 3.8% |
| Risk Resilience | SPYV | Risk Resilience 62 vs 78 |
| 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 SPYG and SPYV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 SPYV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6SPYV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPYV +13
- 47 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- SPYV +16
- 50 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- SPYV +8
- 56 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- SPYV +5
- 56 vs 61
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 11 when SPYV moved ahead of SPYG.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only SPYG
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SPYV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.06%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
SPYV 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 +0.91%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.39%, 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.
- 1SPYG closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPYV's edge.
- 2SPYG's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SPYV'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
SPYV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SPYG | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.6% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.5% | 1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.6% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.6% | 4.9% |
| Year to date | 5.1% | 11% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.8% | 13% |
Technicals
SPYV has the stronger structure| Metric | SPYG | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.5 | 50.6 |
| ADX (14) | 31.4 | 29.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.5% | 0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.7% | 3.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.1% | 14.4% |
Risk
SPYV is the more resilient| Metric | SPYG | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.37 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.94 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 1.36 |
| Max drawdown | -13.5% | -6.6% |
| Current drawdown | -11.3% | -3.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.5% | 10.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SPYG and SPYV?
SPYG puts 53% of its assets in Technology, while SPYV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
How much do SPYG and SPYV overlap?
SPYG and SPYV share 25.49% of their weighted exposure across 82 common holdings. 66 holdings are unique to SPYG, and 356 holdings are unique to SPYV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPYG or SPYV?
SPYV holds more positions: 440 versus 150 for SPYG.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.04% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SPYV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.68% 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 10.1% for SPYV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SPYV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17.9% against -32.7% for SPYG.
Compare SPYG and SPYV 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.