SPYV vs VONV ETF Comparison

Compare SPYV and VONV across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.

Market data as of Sep 5, 2026 market close· Fund characteristics as of Sep 5, 2026
SPYV
SPDR
vs
VONV
Vanguard
SPYV
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF
Issuer
SPDR
Fund type
Equity
Index
-
Inception
2000-09-25
VONV
Vanguard Russell 1000 Value ETF
Issuer
Vanguard
Fund type
Large Cap Equity
Index
-
Inception
2010-09-20

What is the main difference between SPYV and VONV?

SPYV is State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF, while VONV is Vanguard Russell 1000 Value ETF. SPYV is tied to Equity; VONV is tied to Large Cap Equity. VONV is broader by holdings count, with 872 positions versus 438 for SPYV. VONV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.

Expense ratio
SPYV
0.04%
VONV
0.06%
Lower annual fund costSPYV
Holdings
SPYV
438
VONV
872
Broader reported basketVONV
1Y return
SPYV
+17.5%
VONV
+29.2%
Trailing performanceVONV
Annualized volatility
SPYV
9.8%
VONV
11.2%
Lower realized volatilitySPYV
MetricSPYVVONVType
Expense ratio0.04%0.06%Fund
Assets under management$37.1B$23.1BFund
Holdings438872Fund
Top-10 concentration43.5%53.1%Fund
Average volume3,265,3901,018,432Fund
Underlying exposureEquityLarge Cap EquityFund
1Y return+17.5%+29.2%Performance
YTD return+12.1%+22.9%Performance
Annualized volatility9.8%11.2%Risk
Max drawdown-6.6%-7.2%Risk
Beta0.580.70Risk
Sharpe ratio1.312.01Risk
Sortino ratio1.913.09Risk
AIQ Score61/10059/100AlgovestIQ
AIQ Edge Score8/108/10AlgovestIQ
Momentum62/10063/100AlgovestIQ
Risk Resilience85/10085/100AlgovestIQ

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF vs Vanguard Russell 1000 Value ETF

Data as of Sep 5, 2026· market close· Factor / Style / Smart Beta· Coverage 66/66 fields· High confidence
AIQ VerdictFragileAIQ Comparison Conviction 1/10

SPYV leads

SPYV leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.

Fragile: 0 of 4 evidence groups support SPYV, and its current signal state is conflicted.

Evidence agreement: 0 of 4Comparison trend: Stable
SPYV

State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF

Leads
AIQ Score
61/100
AIQ Edge Score
8/10
VONV

Vanguard Russell 1000 Value ETF

AIQ Score
59/100
AIQ Edge Score
8/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPYV over VONV, 61 versus 59 as of Sep 5, 2026. SPYV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. SPYV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPYV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. SPYV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.

Compare State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF and Vanguard Russell 1000 Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.

Compare SPYV and VONV against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

SPYV advantage
0
VONV advantage
  • Quality30%65 vs 60
    SPYV +5
  • Momentum25%62 vs 63
    Even
  • Value30%43 vs 43
    Even
  • Risk Resilience15%85 vs 85
    Even

0 of 4 evidence groups favor SPYV. SPYV’s edge is concentrated in quality.

What changed since the last close

Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.

SPYV+2 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +5

No new signals fired.

VONV+1 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +7

No new signals fired.

SPYV's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPYV and VONV both carry a full feed there.

The central trade-off

SPYV (State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.

VONV (Vanguard Russell 1000 Value ETF): the counter-case, on technicals.

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

SPYV

SPYV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.

Growth

Even

Growth figures are not covered for both names.

Value

Even

The two are level on Value.

Momentum

Even

The two are level on Momentum.

Lower downside

SPYV

SPYV carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.

Analyst upside

Even

Analyst 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.

MeasureSPYVVONVWhy it matters
Expense ratio0.04%0.06%Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold.
Assets under management$37.1B$23.1BLarger funds generally carry tighter spreads.
Holdings438872More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns.
Average volume3,265,3901,018,432Liquidity — matters most if you trade size.
Annualized volatility9.8%11.2%Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure.
Max drawdown-6.6%-7.2%The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund.
Sharpe ratio1.312.01Return per unit of risk. Higher is better.
Beta0.580.70Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio.

Where the exposure actually sits

SPYV and VONV share 113.22% of their weighted exposure across 394 common holdings.

Financial Services15.8% vs 19.0%
Consumer Defensive8.8% vs 7.3%
Energy7.3% vs 6.1%
Industrials10.7% vs 9.6%
Technology20.5% vs 19.9%
Consumer Cyclical10.5% vs 11.1%
Utilities4.3% vs 3.7%
Basic Materials3.2% vs 3.7%
SPYVVONV

VONV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 53.11% of the fund, against 43.46% for SPYV (872 holdings vs 438). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.

44 holdings are unique to SPYV and 478 to VONV. Owning both adds little diversification — they are largely the same exposure in different wrappers.

Largest shared positions

HoldingSPYVVONVShared
AAPLAPPLE INC15.86%11.07%11.07%
AMZNAMAZON.COM INC7.84%13.06%7.84%
WMTWALMART INC3.13%2.41%2.41%
INTCINTEL CORP2.98%2.14%2.14%
BACBANK OF AMERICA CORP2.69%2.07%2.07%
CVXCHEVRON CORP2.6%1.98%1.98%
PGPROCTER + GAMBLE CO/THE2.25%1.82%1.82%
JNJJOHNSON + JOHNSON1.81%3.34%1.81%

Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.

ETF comparison questions

Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.

Which ETF is more diversified, SPYV or VONV?

VONV currently has more reported holdings, with 872 positions versus 438.

Which has the lower expense ratio?

SPYV 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?

VONV has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.

Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?

SPYV has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.

Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?

SPYV currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 61 to 59.

AIQ Agreement Matrix

0 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 groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreEven61 vs 59
FundamentalsNot coveredNot covered
ValuationEvenValue 43 vs 43
TechnicalsVONVPrice vs 50-day 1.5% vs 2.2%; vs 200-day 7.5% vs 12.9%
Risk ResilienceEvenRisk Resilience 85 vs 85
Analyst expectationsNot coveredNot covered

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SPYV and VONV and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Fragile

The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.

  • The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
  • Only 0 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 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 · Apr 22 Sep 3

SPYV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.

Apr 22SPYV leads above the line · VONV leads belowSep 3
Today
SPYV +2
61 vs 59
7 sessions ago
SPYV +2
61 vs 59
30 sessions ago
SPYV +2
65 vs 63
90 sessions ago
SPYV +1
61 vs 60

The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 7 when SPYV moved ahead of VONV.

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.

SPYVConflicted

4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

  • Golden Cross Active bullish, trend, long horizon (5.13%)
  • EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish bullish, trend, medium horizon
  • 52-Week High Proximity bullish, risk, long horizon (0.5%)
VONVConflicted

4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted

  • Golden Cross Active bullish, trend, long horizon (9.75%)
  • Bollinger Band Squeeze neutral, volatility, short horizon
  • EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish bullish, trend, medium horizon

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.

SPYVDivergence

Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.66%, AIQ +2 points).

VONVDivergence

Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.63%, 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.

  1. 1VONV closes the Quality gap — currently 5 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPYV's edge.
  2. 2VONV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
  3. 3SPYV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
  4. 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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

VONV leads 5 of 6 windows
MetricSPYVVONV
1 week (5 sessions)0.6%0.7%
1 month (20 sessions)1.6%1.3%
3 months (63 sessions)4%7.6%
6 months (126 sessions)9.1%17.4%
Year to date12.1%22.9%
1 year (252 sessions)17.5%29.2%

Technicals

VONV has the stronger structure
MetricSPYVVONV
RSI (14)51.152.1
ADX (14)16.624.8
Price vs 50-day1.5%2.2%
Price vs 200-day7.5%12.9%
Volatility (1M, annualized)7.2%8%

Risk

Split
MetricSPYVVONV
Beta0.580.7
Sharpe ratio1.312.01
Sortino ratio1.913.09
Max drawdown-6.6%-7.2%
Current drawdown0%0%
Annualized volatility9.8%11.2%
Value at risk (95%)-1%-1.1%

Straight answers

Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.

Which is better, SPYV or VONV?

On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SPYV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 61 against VONV's 59. The edge comes from 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 SPYV or VONV the better buy right now?

SPYV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.

Why does the AIQ Score favor SPYV over VONV?

The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SPYV leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.

Which is better value, SPYV or VONV?

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, SPYV or VONV?

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, SPYV or VONV?

The two are level on Momentum. 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, SPYV or VONV?

SPYV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPYV carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.

Is SPYV more profitable than VONV?

Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.

Is SPYV's lead over VONV getting stronger or weaker?

SPYV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-07, when SPYV moved ahead of VONV.

What would change the SPYV vs VONV verdict?

The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VONV closes the Quality gap — currently 5 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPYV's edge; VONV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; SPYV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.

What do the current signals say about SPYV and VONV?

SPYV: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VONV: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 SPYV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VONV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).

Compare SPYV and VONV 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.