Core Insights - The Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) and ProShares - S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) differ significantly in cost, breadth, and yield, with VYM being more affordable and holding a larger number of stocks [1][2] Cost and Size Comparison - VYM has an expense ratio of 0.06%, significantly lower than NOBL's 0.35% [3] - As of October 31, 2025, VYM's one-year return is 10.0%, while NOBL's is -1.8% [3] - VYM offers a dividend yield of 2.5%, compared to NOBL's 2.1% [3] - VYM has assets under management (AUM) of $81.3 billion, while NOBL has $11.1 billion [3] Performance and Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, VYM has a maximum drawdown of 15.85%, while NOBL's is 17.92% [4] - An investment of $1,000 in VYM would grow to $1,734 over five years, compared to $1,396 for NOBL [4] Portfolio Composition - VYM holds 589 U.S. stocks, with significant allocations in Financial Services (22%), Technology (16%), and Healthcare (12%) [5] - Top holdings in VYM include Broadcom Inc (1.73%), JPMorgan Chase (0.25%), and Exxon Mobil (2.38%) [5] - NOBL consists of 70 equally weighted stocks, focusing on long-term dividend growth, with notable holdings like C.H. Robinson Worldwide (0.02%), Cardinal Health (0.02%), and Caterpillar (0.02%) [6] Investment Strategy - VYM tracks the FTSE All-World High Dividend Yield Index, excluding real estate investment trusts and focusing on companies with higher-than-average dividend yields [8] - NOBL tracks S&P 500 companies that have consistently raised dividends for at least 25 years, emphasizing proven dividend raisers [9]

Core Insights - The Schwab Long-Term U.S. Treasury ETF (SCHQ) and the Vanguard Long-Term Treasury ETF (VGLT) are designed to track long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, appealing to investors seeking interest rate sensitivity and government-backed stability [1] Cost & Size - Both SCHQ and VGLT have an identical expense ratio of 0.03% [3] - As of October 20, 2025, SCHQ has a 1-year return of 2.70% and a dividend yield of 4.5%, while VGLT has a 1-year return of 2.73% and a dividend yield of 4.4% [2] - SCHQ has assets under management (AUM) of $859.0 million, whereas VGLT has a significantly larger AUM of $14.3 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over a 5-year period, SCHQ experienced a maximum drawdown of -43.01%, while VGLT had a slightly higher drawdown of -43.11% [4] - The growth of $1,000 invested over 5 years would result in $584 for SCHQ and $586 for VGLT [4] Fund Composition - VGLT invests in U.S. Treasury bonds with maturities ranging from 10 to 25 years, holding 96 securities [5] - SCHQ also focuses on long-term U.S. Treasury bonds with 95 holdings, primarily in U.S. Treasury bonds with yields of 4.75% and 4.625% [6] Investment Appeal - Both ETFs are considered solid investment vehicles for exposure to long-term U.S. Treasuries, with low expense ratios enhancing returns for investors over time [7] - VGLT benefits from a larger asset base, leading to higher liquidity and economies of scale, while SCHQ offers a competitive alternative with a similar return profile [8] - The choice between SCHQ and VGLT often depends on individual preferences regarding fund size, brokerage platforms, and financial goals [9]

Core Insights - The State Street SPDR S&P Retail ETF (XRT) is a passively managed ETF launched on June 19, 2006, providing broad exposure to the Consumer Discretionary - Retail segment of the equity market [1][3] - The ETF has assets over $240.88 million and aims to match the performance of the S&P Retail Select Industry Index [3][4] - The ETF has an annual operating expense ratio of 0.35% and a 12-month trailing dividend yield of 1.3% [5] Sector Overview - The Consumer Discretionary - Retail sector is ranked 8th among the 16 Zacks sectors, placing it in the top 50% [2] - The ETF has a significant allocation of approximately 78.4% in the Consumer Discretionary sector, followed by Consumer Staples [6] Holdings and Performance - Etsy Inc (ETSY) is the largest holding at about 1.77% of total assets, with the top 10 holdings accounting for approximately 16.11% of total assets [7] - The ETF has gained about 2.64% year-to-date and approximately 6.45% over the past year, with a trading range between $62.11 and $88.49 in the last 52 weeks [8] Risk Assessment - The ETF has a beta of 1.24 and a standard deviation of 23.73% over the trailing three-year period, indicating a medium risk profile [8] Alternatives - Alternatives to XRT include the Amplify Online Retail ETF (IBUY) and the VanEck Retail ETF (RTH), with IBUY having $153.02 million in assets and RTH having $255.46 million [11]

Core Insights - The SPDR S&P Bank ETF (KBE) is designed for broad exposure to the Financials - Banking segment, launched on November 8, 2005, and is favored for its low costs and tax efficiency [1][2] Fund Overview - KBE is sponsored by State Street Investment Management and has over $1.37 billion in assets, making it one of the larger ETFs in the Financials - Banking segment [3] - The ETF aims to match the performance of the S&P Banks Select Industry Index, which includes publicly traded banks and thrifts [4] Cost Structure - KBE has an annual operating expense ratio of 0.35%, positioning it as one of the least expensive options in its category, with a 12-month trailing dividend yield of 2.56% [5] Sector Exposure and Holdings - The ETF is fully allocated to the Financials sector, with about 100% of its portfolio dedicated to this area [6] - Comerica Inc (CMA) represents approximately 1.22% of total assets, with the top 10 holdings accounting for about 11.19% of total assets under management [7] Performance Metrics - KBE has increased by about 4.28% year-to-date and 8.13% over the past year, with a trading range between $45.85 and $62.76 in the last 52 weeks [8] - The ETF has a beta of 1.02 and a standard deviation of 28.17% over the trailing three-year period, indicating a higher risk profile [8] Investment Alternatives - KBE holds a Zacks ETF Rank of 2 (Buy), indicating strong potential for investors seeking exposure to the Financials ETFs segment [9] - Other ETFs in the space include First Trust NASDAQ Bank ETF (FTXO) and Invesco KBW Bank ETF (KBWB), with respective assets of $238.26 million and $5.66 billion [10]

Core Viewpoint - The Invesco S&P SmallCap Momentum ETF (XSMO) is a significant player in the Small Cap Growth segment of the US equity market, with over $2 billion in assets, providing investors with diversified exposure to this sector [1]. Group 1: Fund Overview - XSMO was launched on March 3, 2005, and is passively managed to track the Small Cap Growth segment [1]. - The fund has amassed assets exceeding $2 billion, positioning it among the larger ETFs in its category [1]. Group 2: Small Cap Growth Characteristics - Small cap companies are defined as those with market capitalizations below $2 billion, typically presenting higher growth potential but also higher risks compared to larger companies [2]. - Growth stocks generally exhibit higher sales and earnings growth rates, but they come with higher valuations and volatility [3]. Group 3: Costs and Performance - The ETF has an expense ratio of 0.36%, which is competitive within its peer group, and a 12-month trailing dividend yield of 0.83% [4]. - XSMO aims to match the performance of the S&P SMALLCAP 600 MOMENTUM INDEX, with a year-to-date return of approximately 9.47% and a one-year return of about 10.92% as of November 4, 2025 [7]. Group 4: Sector Exposure and Holdings - The ETF's largest allocation is to the Industrials sector, comprising about 18.9% of the portfolio, followed by Financials and Consumer Discretionary [5]. - The top holding, Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP), represents approximately 3.22% of total assets, with the top 10 holdings accounting for about 22.49% of total assets under management [6]. Group 5: Risk and Diversification - XSMO has a beta of 1.07 and a standard deviation of 21.02% over the trailing three-year period, indicating a moderate level of risk [8]. - The ETF includes around 118 holdings, which helps to effectively diversify company-specific risk [8]. Group 6: Alternatives - Other ETFs in the small cap growth space include the iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF (IWO) with $13.17 billion in assets and the Vanguard Small-Cap Growth ETF (VBK) with $20.67 billion [11]. - IWO has an expense ratio of 0.24%, while VBK charges 0.07%, making them potentially attractive alternatives for investors [11]. Group 7: Market Trends - There is a growing trend among retail and institutional investors towards passively managed ETFs due to their low costs, transparency, flexibility, and tax efficiency, making them suitable for long-term investment strategies [12].

Core Insights - The Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF (FHLC) is a passively managed ETF launched on October 21, 2013, providing broad exposure to the Healthcare - Broad segment of the equity market [1] - FHLC has amassed over $2.59 billion in assets, making it one of the larger ETFs in its sector [3] - The ETF has an annual operating expense ratio of 0.08%, making it one of the least expensive options available [4] Index Details - FHLC aims to match the performance of the MSCI USA IMI Health Care Index, which represents the U.S. healthcare sector [3] - The ETF is fully allocated to the healthcare sector, providing diversified exposure [5] Holdings and Performance - Eli Lilly + Co Common Stock (LLY) constitutes about 11% of total assets, with the top 10 holdings accounting for approximately 48.94% of total assets [6] - Year-to-date, FHLC has gained about 7.7%, with a 12-month increase of approximately 0.75% as of November 4, 2025 [7] - The ETF has a beta of 0.67 and a standard deviation of 13.55% over the trailing three-year period, indicating medium risk [7] Alternatives - FHLC carries a Zacks ETF Rank of 3 (Hold), suggesting it is a sufficient option for investors seeking exposure to healthcare ETFs [8] - Other alternatives include the Vanguard Health Care ETF (VHT) and the Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLV), with VHT having $15.91 billion in assets and XLV having $36.52 billion [9]

Core Insights - The comparison between Invesco Food & Beverage ETF (PBJ) and First Trust Nasdaq Food & Beverage ETF (FTXG) highlights differences in cost, returns, risk, and portfolio composition, appealing to various investor preferences [1] Cost & Size - FTXG has an expense ratio of 0.60% while PBJ has a slightly higher expense ratio of 0.61% [2] - As of October 28, 2025, FTXG has a one-year return of -13.3% compared to PBJ's -5.1% [2] - FTXG offers a dividend yield of 2.9%, higher than PBJ's 2.0% [2] - Assets under management (AUM) for FTXG is $18.3 million, significantly lower than PBJ's $101.2 million [2][3] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the past five years, FTXG experienced a maximum drawdown of -21.68%, while PBJ had a lower maximum drawdown of -15.82% [4] - A $1,000 investment in FTXG would have grown to $1,016 over five years, whereas the same investment in PBJ would have grown to $1,365 [4] Portfolio Composition - PBJ tracks a rules-based index focusing on U.S. food and beverage companies, with 32 holdings primarily in Consumer Defensive (78%) and some exposure to Consumer Cyclical (16%) [5] - Top holdings in PBJ include DoorDash, Monster Beverage, and Hershey [5] - FTXG is more concentrated in Consumer Defensive stocks (95%) and has minimal exposure to Basic Materials, with top holdings including PepsiCo, Archer-Daniels-Midland, and Mondelez International [6] Historical Performance - FTXG has declined by 28% from its peak in 2022, while PBJ is down 11.9% from its peak [7] - Total returns over the past five years for FTXG, including dividends, are 11.5%, while PBJ's total return is 45% [8] - Both ETFs have underperformed compared to the S&P 500, which has increased by 109% over the same period [8] Dividend Growth - The latest quarterly dividend from PBJ has increased by 72.6% compared to five years ago, while FTXG's latest quarterly dividend is up by 52.5% over the same period [9]

Core Insights - The SPDR Portfolio Developed World ex-US ETF (SPDW) and Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (VEA) are both low-cost options for investors seeking international equity exposure outside the U.S. [1] - VEA is distinguished by its broader portfolio and significantly larger assets under management (AUM) compared to SPDW [1] Cost & Size Comparison - Both SPDW and VEA have an expense ratio of 0.03% [2] - As of October 28, 2025, SPDW has a 1-year return of 21.4% while VEA has a return of 21.2% [2] - VEA offers a slightly higher dividend yield of 2.7% compared to SPDW's 2.6% [2] - AUM for SPDW is $32.0 billion, while VEA has $250.8 billion [2] Performance & Risk Metrics - Over a 5-year period, SPDW experienced a maximum drawdown of 30.20%, while VEA had a drawdown of 29.71% [3] - An investment of $1,000 would grow to $1,546 in SPDW and $1,555 in VEA over the same period [3] Portfolio Composition - VEA tracks nearly 3,900 developed-market stocks, with significant allocations in financial services (24%), industrials (19%), and technology (11%) [4] - SPDW holds about 2,400 securities, focusing on developed markets outside the U.S., with similar sector allocations: financial services (23%), industrials (19%), and technology (10%) [5] - The top three holdings for both funds are identical, but VEA has a broader range of stocks [6] Regional Allocation - VEA's regional allocation is 52% in Europe, 35% in the Pacific, and 11% in North America [6] - SPDW has a concentration in Japan, the U.K., Canada, and France, with more than half of its holdings in these countries [7]

Core Insights - The Vanguard Information Technology ETF (VGT) and the Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLK) are compared for their performance, diversification, cost, and risk metrics [1] Cost & Size - XLK has a lower expense ratio of 0.08% compared to VGT's 0.09% [2][3] - As of October 27, 2025, XLK's one-year return is 29.9%, while VGT's is 30.6% [2] - XLK offers a dividend yield of 0.5%, slightly higher than VGT's 0.4% [3] - XLK has an AUM of $96.4 billion, while VGT has $128.3 billion [2] Performance & Risk Comparison - Over five years, XLK has a max drawdown of 33.56%, while VGT's is 35.08% [4] - A $1,000 investment in XLK would grow to $2,681 over five years, compared to $2,621 for VGT [4] Holdings & Diversification - VGT holds approximately 310 stocks, primarily in technology, with a small 1% in communication services [5] - XLK is more concentrated with only 68 holdings, focusing exclusively on technology [6] - Both funds have significant investments in NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft, but with different weightings [6] Historical Performance - Over the past five years, XLK has delivered a total return of 181.8%, while VGT has produced a total return of 174.3% [7] Index Tracking - VGT tracks the MSCI U.S. Investable Market Information Technology 25/50 index, which includes large, medium, and small U.S. tech companies [8] - XLK tracks technology stocks limited to those in the S&P 500 index [8]

Core Insights - The iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) and SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF (SPLG) both aim to track the S&P 500 Index, providing diversified access to large-cap U.S. equities [1][7] Cost & Size Comparison - SPLG has a lower expense ratio of 0.02% compared to IVV's 0.03% [2][8] - Both funds have a 1-year return of 18.3% as of October 28, 2025, and a dividend yield of 1.16% [2] - SPLG's assets under management (AUM) stand at $86.83 billion, while IVV has a significantly larger AUM of $701.37 billion [2][3] Performance & Risk Metrics - The maximum drawdown over five years for SPLG is 24.49%, while IVV's is slightly higher at 24.52% [4] - An investment of $1,000 would grow to $2,092 in SPLG and $2,091 in IVV over five years [4] Portfolio Composition - IVV holds 503 securities with a sector exposure of 36% in technology, 13% in financial services, and 10% in consumer discretionary [5] - Top holdings in IVV include Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, each representing less than 10% of the portfolio [5] - SPLG mirrors IVV's sector weights and portfolio makeup, despite being from a different issuer [6]