PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
SMDV vs. XMLV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

SMDV vs. XMLV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV) and Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF (XMLV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SMDV achieves a 17.34% return, which is significantly higher than XMLV's 10.06% return. Over the past 10 years, SMDV has underperformed XMLV with an annualized return of 7.27%, while XMLV has yielded a comparatively higher 7.92% annualized return.


SMDV

1D
0.19%
1M
2.67%
6M
13.08%
YTD
17.34%
1Y
17.36%
3Y*
11.77%
5Y*
7.01%
10Y*
7.27%

XMLV

1D
0.58%
1M
2.94%
6M
7.85%
YTD
10.06%
1Y
12.17%
3Y*
11.90%
5Y*
7.19%
10Y*
7.92%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SMDV vs. XMLV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SMDV
ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF
17.34%0.26%7.03%8.99%-5.90%18.98%-4.74%17.23%-0.58%4.63%
XMLV
Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF
10.06%5.55%17.08%1.86%-6.55%23.00%-8.42%23.77%-0.16%13.72%

Correlation

The correlation between SMDV and XMLV is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.81

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.85

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.88

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.86

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2015

0.83

The correlation between SMDV and XMLV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

SMDV vs. XMLV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
SMDV
XMLV

Financial Services

32.8%
24.2%

Industrials

21.9%
9.8%

Utilities

15.7%
18.5%

Basic Materials

8.3%
1.1%

Real Estate

7.5%
33.7%

Consumer Defensive

4.4%
2.5%

Consumer Cyclical

4.1%
4.4%

Technology

2.5%
1.0%

Healthcare

1.6%
2.1%

Communication Services

1.1%
1.0%

Energy

-

3.7%

Financial Services

SMDV
32.8%
XMLV
24.2%

Industrials

SMDV
21.9%
XMLV
9.8%

Utilities

SMDV
15.7%
XMLV
18.5%

Basic Materials

SMDV
8.3%
XMLV
1.1%

Real Estate

SMDV
7.5%
XMLV
33.7%

Consumer Defensive

SMDV
4.4%
XMLV
2.5%

Consumer Cyclical

SMDV
4.1%
XMLV
4.4%

Technology

SMDV
2.5%
XMLV
1.0%

Healthcare

SMDV
1.6%
XMLV
2.1%

Communication Services

SMDV
1.1%
XMLV
1.0%

Energy

SMDV

-

XMLV
3.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

SMDV vs. XMLV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

SMDV
SMDV Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
SMDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SMDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
SMDV Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
SMDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 4444
Calmar Ratio Rank
SMDV Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
Martin Ratio Rank

XMLV
XMLV Risk / Return Rank: 4040
Overall Rank
XMLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMLV Omega Ratio Rank: 3535
Omega Ratio Rank
XMLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMLV Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

SMDV vs. XMLV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV) and Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF (XMLV). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


SMDVXMLVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.19

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.78

1.74

+0.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.50

5.73

-0.23

SMDV vs. XMLV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMDV Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is comparable to the XMLV Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMDV and XMLV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

SMDV vs. XMLV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMDV drawdown since its inception was -34.12%, smaller than the maximum XMLV drawdown of -39.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMDV and XMLV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SMDVXMLVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.12%

-39.86%

+5.74%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.79%

-7.03%

-2.76%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.23%

-13.80%

-7.43%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.23%

-16.53%

-4.70%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.12%

-39.86%

+5.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.24%

0.00%

-1.24%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.89%

-4.24%

-1.65%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.17%

2.13%

+1.04%

Volatility

SMDV vs. XMLV - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF (SMDV) has a higher volatility of 3.78% compared to Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF (XMLV) at 3.47%. This indicates that SMDV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMLV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SMDVXMLVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.78%

3.47%

+0.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.51%

7.92%

+2.59%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.39%

10.67%

+4.72%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.57%

14.48%

+4.09%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.72%

16.95%

+3.77%

SMDV vs. XMLV - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMDV has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than XMLV's 0.25% expense ratio.


Dividends

SMDV vs. XMLV - Dividend Comparison

SMDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.30%, less than XMLV's 2.88% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
SMDV
ProShares Russell 2000 Dividend Growers ETF
2.30%2.67%2.68%2.69%2.51%2.02%2.13%2.03%1.97%1.84%1.35%1.81%
XMLV
Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF
2.88%2.87%2.23%2.34%2.05%1.14%1.93%2.02%2.13%1.74%1.72%1.85%

Frequently Asked Questions


SMDV and XMLV have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

SMDV has higher volatility (3.78%) compared to XMLV (3.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMDV dropped -34.12% vs XMLV's -39.86%.

On 10-year performance, XMLV leads with 7.92% vs 7.27% for SMDV. On fees, XMLV is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, XMLV has been the lower-risk option at 3.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, XMLV has performed better with a 7.92% return vs 7.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

XMLV is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for SMDV.

XMLV has the higher dividend yield at 2.88%, compared with 2.30% for SMDV.

SMDV is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while XMLV is Volatility Hedged Equity. SMDV tracks Russell 2000 Dividend Growth Index, while XMLV tracks S&P MidCap 400 Low Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for SMDV and 0.25% for XMLV.

XMLV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.15 vs 1.13), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SMDV and XMLV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer