Verified factor-similar pair

BMVP vs SPHQ

These two ETFs meet the same FF6 US comparison criteria: US-listed equity ETFs, the same USD model basis, at least one material non-market factor, and 100% overlap in statistically significant material factor exposure.

UMD
Similarity score
81
Verified similar

The score combines exposure-level distance, factor-vector shape, market-beta closeness, and a small backtested relative-Sharpe term.

Quick Read

  • SPHQ has the higher backtested relative Sharpe (1.139 vs 0.859).
  • SPHQ has the lower published fee (0.21% vs 0.29%).
  • BMVP is cheaper on dividend valuation (64 vs 152, where 100 is each fund's historical median).
  • BMVP has the stronger regression fit (adjusted R-squared 0.894 vs 0.855).

These are screening signals, not a complete review of portfolio construction, turnover, taxes, or trading quality.

BMVP

Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF
UMD
Adj. R2
0.894
Rel. Sharpe
0.859
Mkt beta
0.96
AUM
US$101M
MER
0.29%
Valuation
64

SPHQ

Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF
UMD
Adj. R2
0.855
Rel. Sharpe
1.139
Mkt beta
0.97
AUM
US$16.7B
MER
0.21%
Valuation
152

Factor Exposure Match

Blue bars compare raw factor beta magnitude. Green bars compare absolute t-stat strength. Dim bars indicate the t-stat is below 1.96.

SMB
BMVP
+0.28
|t|
+7.1
SPHQ
+0.09
|t|
+1.9
diff +0.19
HML
BMVP
+0.07
|t|
+1.7
SPHQ
-0.08
|t|
-1.7
diff +0.15
RMW
BMVP
+0.18
|t|
+3.8
SPHQ
+0.20
|t|
+3.6
diff -0.02
CMA
BMVP
+0.03
|t|
+0.4
SPHQ
+0.16
|t|
+2.3
diff -0.13
UMD
BMVP
+0.13
|t|
+5.5
SPHQ
+0.17
|t|
+6.1
diff -0.04

Why This Pair Matches

Exposure level
80
Exposure shape
84
Mkt beta diff
0.01
Rel. Sharpe diff
0.280

This comparison focuses on measured factor exposure. It does not compare holdings methodology, turnover, tax handling, or issuer process. Backtested relative Sharpe is a secondary signal rather than a stand-alone forecast. See methodology.

BMVP fund page SPHQ fund page US ETF Leaders US Universe
Important context

VerifiedBeta publishes educational ETF research, not personalized investment advice, portfolio management, or security recommendations. Funds that screen well here can still be unsuitable for your objectives, taxes, liquidity needs, or constraints. Review fund documents, methodology assumptions, and your own circumstances before acting. See the full disclaimer.