SPYV vs VTV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
SPYV and VTV 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 VTV is Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF. SPYV is broader by holdings count, with 440 positions versus 311 for VTV. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VTV ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 60.
| Metric | SPYV | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.03% |
| Holdings | 440 | 311 |
| Top-10 concentration | 24.1% | 22.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.68% | 1.87% |
| Average volume | 2,282,631 | 2,857,930 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +13% | +20.4% |
| YTD return | +11% | +16.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11% | +11.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.1% | 10.8% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.6% | -6.9% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -17.9% | -17% |
| Beta | 0.57 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.94 | 1.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.36 | 2.07 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 62/100 | 62/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 78/100 | 75/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF
VTV leads
VTV leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support VTV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF
Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTV over SPYV, 64 versus 60 as of Nov 7, 2026. VTV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. VTV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. VTV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value ETF and Vanguard Morningstar Value ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
SPYV vs VTV: 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 | VTV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.04% | 0.03% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 440 | 311 | SPYV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 24.1% | 22.5% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.68% | 1.87% | Similar |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -17.9% | -17% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.1% | 10.8% | 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 VTV 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.
- Value45 vs 53VTV +8
- Quality65 vs 71VTV +6
- Risk Resilience78 vs 75Even
- Momentum62 vs 62Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor VTV. VTV’s edge is concentrated in value 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 +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VTV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPYV and VTV 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 | SPYV | VTV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.04% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 440 | 311 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 2,282,631 | 2,857,930 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.1% | 10.8% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -6.6% | -6.9% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.94 | 1.43 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.57 | 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
SPYV and VTV share 67.75% of their weighted exposure across 281 common holdings.
157 holdings are unique to SPYV, and 27 holdings are unique to VTV. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
SPYV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 24.06% of the fund, against 22.48% for VTV (440 holdings vs 311). 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 | VTV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMExxonMobil Holdings Corp | 2.3% | 2.39% | 2.3% |
| WMTWalmart Inc | 1.56% | 1.81% | 1.56% |
| BACBank of America Corp | 1.37% | 1.47% | 1.37% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 1.34% | 1.38% | 1.34% |
| MRKMERCK + CO. INC. | 1.2% | 1.2% | 1.2% |
| UNHUnitedHealth Group Inc | 1.19% | 1.4% | 1.19% |
| PGProcter & Gamble Co/The | 1.12% | 1.25% | 1.12% |
| HDHome Depot Inc/The | 1.02% | 1.23% | 1.02% |
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 VTV doesn’t
| Holding | SPYV | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 8.06% | Not held |
| AMZNAMAZON.COM INC | 3.9% | Not held |
| INTCINTEL CORP | 1.67% | 0.67% |
| COSTCOSTCO WHOLESALE CORP | 1.35% | Not held |
| TSLATESLA INC | 1.31% | Not held |
| VVISA INC CLASS A SHARES | 0.92% | Not held |
What VTV adds that SPYV doesn’t
| Holding | VTV | SPYV |
|---|---|---|
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 3.5% | 1.02% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 3.45% | Not held |
| BRK-BBerkshire Hathaway Inc | 2.99% | Not held |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 2.29% | 0.88% |
| ABBVAbbVie Inc | 1.65% | 0.82% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc | 1.53% | 0.67% |
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.
SPYV vs VTV: five-year payout growth
VTV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.14% a year against SPYV's 4.13%.
| Dividend metric | SPYV | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 4.13% | 5.14% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.819 | $3.040 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.003 | $3.906 |
| Calendar-year declines | 3 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #106 of 138 | #94 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
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VTV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VTV | 60 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VTV | Value 45 vs 53 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.2% vs 0%; vs 200-day 3.8% vs 4.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 78 vs 75 |
| 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 VTV 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 VTV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6VTV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTV +4
- 60 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VTV +3
- 66 vs 69
- 30 sessions ago
- VTV +1
- 64 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- VTV +1
- 61 vs 62
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when VTV 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
Only SPYV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VTV 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).
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.
- 1SPYV closes the Value gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTV's edge.
- 2SPYV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VTV'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
VTV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SPYV | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.1% | 1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.3% | -0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.9% | 7.7% |
| Year to date | 11% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13% | 20.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | SPYV | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.6 | 51.7 |
| ADX (14) | 29.3 | 29.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.2% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.8% | 4.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.4% | 14.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SPYV | VTV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.57 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.94 | 1.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.36 | 2.07 |
| Max drawdown | -6.6% | -6.9% |
| Current drawdown | -3.2% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.1% | 10.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
How much do SPYV and VTV overlap?
SPYV and VTV share 67.75% of their weighted exposure across 281 common holdings. 157 holdings are unique to SPYV, and 27 holdings are unique to VTV. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Which ETF is more diversified, SPYV or VTV?
SPYV holds more positions: 440 versus 311 for VTV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
The two are within a basis point: 0.04% for SPYV and 0.03% for VTV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
Their trailing 12-month distribution yields are similar: 1.68% for SPYV and 1.87% for VTV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 10.1% annualized for SPYV and 10.8% for VTV.
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% for VTV.
Compare SPYV and VTV 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.