SPYG vs USMV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SPYG and USMV 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 USMV is iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF. SPYG is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has USMV ahead on AIQ Score, 67 versus 47.
What is the main difference between SPYG and USMV?
SPYG puts 53% of its assets in Technology, while USMV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 33%.
| Metric | SPYG | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 150 | 176 |
| Top-10 concentration | 59.9% | 15.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.52% | 1.39% |
| Average volume | 2,437,363 | 1,957,599 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +4.8% | +8.9% |
| YTD return | +5.1% | +7.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +10.3% | +7.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.5% | 9.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.5% | -6.8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32.7% | -17.9% |
| Beta | 1.37 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 0.94 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 67/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 24/100 | 61/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 62/100 | 68/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF vs iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
USMV leads
USMV leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Stable: 3 of 3 evidence groups support USMV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USMV over SPYG, 67 versus 47 as of Nov 7, 2026. USMV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. USMV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USMV today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. USMV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Growth ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SPYG 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 | SPYG | USMV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.04% | 0.15% | SPYG |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 150 | 176 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 59.9% | 15.1% | USMV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.52% | 1.39% | USMV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32.7% | -17.9% | USMV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.5% | 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 SPYG 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.
- Momentum24 vs 61USMV +37
- Quality66 vs 72USMV +6
- Risk Resilience62 vs 68USMV +6
3 of 3 evidence groups favor USMV. USMV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
USMV's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPYG and USMV 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 | USMV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 150 | 176 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,437,363 | 1,957,599 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.5% | 9.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -13.5% | -6.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.62 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.37 | 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
SPYG and USMV share 25.88% of their weighted exposure across 72 common holdings.
76 holdings are unique to SPYG, and 101 holdings are unique to USMV. 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 15.08% for USMV (150 holdings vs 176). 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 | USMV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 14.85% | 1.57% | 1.57% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 10.27% | 1.55% | 1.55% |
| BRK-BBERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC CL B | 2.61% | 1.45% | 1.45% |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 1.06% | 1.49% | 1.06% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.8% | 0.95% | 0.95% |
| PLTRPALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC A | 1.07% | 0.95% | 0.95% |
| VVISA CLASS A | 0.94% | 1% | 0.94% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 6.73% | 0.91% | 0.91% |
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 USMV doesn’t
| Holding | SPYG | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 14.85% | 1.57% |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 10.27% | 1.55% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 6.73% | 0.91% |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A | 5.47% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 4.8% | 0.95% |
| GOOGALPHABET INC CL C | 4.38% | 0.37% |
What USMV adds that SPYG doesn’t
| Holding | USMV | SPYG |
|---|---|---|
| APHAMPHENOL CORP CLASS A | 1.59% | 0.55% |
| WELLWELLTOWER | 1.53% | 0.47% |
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 1.48% | Not held |
| 0VQD.LCHUBB | 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
3 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USMV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | USMV | 47 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | USMV | Price vs 50-day -7.5% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day -1.7% vs 4.1% |
| Risk Resilience | USMV | Risk Resilience 62 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 SPYG and USMV 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 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 3 of 3 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 USMV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6USMV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- USMV +20
- 47 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- USMV +25
- 50 vs 75
- 30 sessions ago
- USMV +19
- 56 vs 75
- 90 sessions ago
- USMV +13
- 56 vs 69
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 5 when USMV 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
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only USMV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.95%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
USMV 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).
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.
- 1SPYG closes the Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to USMV's edge.
- 2SPYG's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3USMV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
USMV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SPYG | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.6% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.5% | 0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.6% | 0.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.6% | 7.7% |
| Year to date | 5.1% | 7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.8% | 8.9% |
Technicals
USMV has the stronger structure| Metric | SPYG | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.5 | 49.8 |
| ADX (14) | 31.4 | 35.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.5% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.7% | 4.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.1% | 12.4% |
Risk
USMV is the more resilient| Metric | SPYG | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.37 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -13.5% | -6.8% |
| Current drawdown | -11.3% | -3.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.5% | 9.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -0.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SPYG and USMV?
SPYG puts 53% of its assets in Technology, while USMV spreads across 11 sectors with none above 33%.
How much do SPYG and USMV overlap?
SPYG and USMV share 25.88% of their weighted exposure across 72 common holdings. 76 holdings are unique to SPYG, and 101 holdings are unique to USMV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPYG or USMV?
They hold a similar number of positions: 150 for SPYG and 176 for USMV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPYG has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.15% for USMV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
USMV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.39% 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 9.2% for USMV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
USMV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17.9% against -32.7% for SPYG.
Compare SPYG 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.