SPYV vs USMV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SPYV and USMV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. SPYV is State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF, while USMV is iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF. SPYV is broader by holdings count, with 440 positions versus 176 for USMV. SPYV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has USMV ahead on AIQ Score, 67 versus 60.
What is the main difference between SPYV and USMV?
SPYV and USMV have little in common: 34% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | SPYV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 440 | 176 |
| Top-10 concentration | 24.1% | 15.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.68% | 1.39% |
| Average volume | 2,282,631 | 1,957,599 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +13% | +8.9% |
| YTD return | +11% | +7.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11% | +7.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.1% | 9.2% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.6% | -6.8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -17.9% | -17.9% |
| Beta | 0.57 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.94 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.36 | 0.94 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 67/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 62/100 | 61/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 78/100 | 68/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF vs iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
USMV leads
USMV leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 3 evidence groups support USMV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USMV over SPYV, 67 versus 60 as of Nov 7, 2026. USMV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while SPYV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. USMV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 3 covered evidence groups favor USMV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. USMV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SPYV 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 | SPYV | USMV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.04% | 0.15% | SPYV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 440 | 176 | SPYV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 24.1% | 15.1% | USMV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.68% | 1.39% | SPYV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -17.9% | -17.9% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.1% | 9.2% | 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 SPYV 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.
- Risk Resilience78 vs 68SPYV +10
- Quality65 vs 72USMV +7
- Momentum62 vs 61Even
1 of 3 evidence groups favor USMV. USMV’s edge is concentrated in quality; SPYV keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPYV and USMV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
USMV (iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
SPYV (State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF): the counter-case, on 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 | SPYV | USMV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 440 | 176 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,282,631 | 1,957,599 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.1% | 9.2% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.6% | -6.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.94 | 0.62 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.57 | 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
SPYV and USMV share 33.61% of their weighted exposure across 122 common holdings.
316 holdings are unique to SPYV, and 51 holdings are unique to USMV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SPYV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 24.06% of the fund, against 15.08% for USMV (440 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 | SPYV | USMV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 2.3% | 1.46% | 1.46% |
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 1.2% | 1.48% | 1.2% |
| PGPROCTER + GAMBLE CO/THE | 1.12% | 1.02% | 1.02% |
| VVISA CLASS A | 0.92% | 1% | 0.92% |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 8.06% | 0.91% | 0.91% |
| JNJJOHNSON & JOHNSON | 0.88% | 1.49% | 0.88% |
| ABBVABBVIE INC | 0.82% | 0.71% | 0.71% |
| VZVERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC | 0.7% | 1.48% | 0.7% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What SPYV adds that USMV doesn’t
| Holding | SPYV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 8.06% | 0.91% |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.9% | 0.13% |
| INTCINTEL CORP | 1.67% | Not held |
| WMTWALMART INC | 1.56% | 0.67% |
| BACBANK OF AMERICA CORP | 1.37% | Not held |
| COSTCOSTCO WHOLESALE CORP | 1.35% | 0.48% |
What USMV adds that SPYV doesn’t
| Holding | USMV | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| APHAMPHENOL CORP CLASS A | 1.59% | Not held |
| NVDANVIDIA | 1.57% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT | 1.55% | Not held |
| WELLWELLTOWER | 1.53% | Not held |
| CBCHUBB | 1.48% | 0.41% |
| VZVERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC | 1.48% | 0.7% |
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
1 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 | 60 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day 3.8% vs 4.1% |
| Risk Resilience | SPYV | Risk Resilience 78 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 SPYV and USMV 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 1 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- USMV +7
- 60 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- USMV +9
- 66 vs 75
- 30 sessions ago
- USMV +11
- 64 vs 75
- 90 sessions ago
- USMV +8
- 61 vs 69
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 24 when USMV moved ahead of SPYV.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only USMV
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
Both carry 6 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure 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.
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).
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.
- 1SPYV closes the Quality gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to USMV's edge.
- 2SPYV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3USMV'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 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate USMV'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
Split across windows| Metric | SPYV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.1% | 0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.3% | 0.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.9% | 7.7% |
| Year to date | 11% | 7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13% | 8.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SPYV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.6 | 49.8 |
| ADX (14) | 29.3 | 35.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.8% | 4.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.4% | 12.4% |
Risk
SPYV is the more resilient| Metric | SPYV | USMV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.57 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.94 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.36 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -6.6% | -6.8% |
| Current drawdown | -3.2% | -3.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.1% | 9.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1% | -0.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between SPYV and USMV?
SPYV and USMV have little in common: 34% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do SPYV and USMV overlap?
SPYV and USMV share 33.61% of their weighted exposure across 122 common holdings. 316 holdings are unique to SPYV, and 51 holdings are unique to USMV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPYV or USMV?
SPYV holds more positions: 440 versus 176 for USMV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SPYV has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.15% for USMV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SPYV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.68% against 1.39% for USMV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 10.1% annualized for SPYV and 9.2% for USMV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -17.9% for SPYV and -17.9% for USMV.
Compare SPYV 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.