Beware of impersonation and scams. Verify official domains before acting.
Data 2026-08-13
U.S. ETF English chain: RSI heatmap, breadth, and rotation data are published separately from the A-share Chinese chain.
AEOAE RESEARCH

S&P 500 ETF Comparison

S&P 500 comparison currently matches 12 ETFs in the published snapshot. 12 are bullish or improving, 0 are neutral, and 0 are bearish or weakening.

S&P 50012 ETFsData 2026-08-13

Page Focus

This page compares ETFs linked to S&P 500 using the current aeoae data fields. It is intentionally neutral: the goal is to show structure differences, not to declare a permanent winner.

The comparison is organized by trend label, boundary accuracy, sample history and structure score. When several ETFs track similar exposure, small differences in fees, liquidity, tracking method and trading usage may matter more than a one-day signal.

The boundary framework is closed after the session and reviewed the next day only. That keeps the comparison free of hindsight edits and lets the nearest boundary hits serve as practical stage targets instead of moving goalposts.

Read the table as a research checklist. A stronger structure today can fade, while a weaker structure may repair later; the page updates with the published dataset.

Current Snapshot

Matched ETFs
12
Bullish
12
Neutral
0
Bearish
0

Research Lens

Exposure match
S&P 500

Start by confirming that products really track the intended exposure.

Structure spread
0.24

A wider spread means same-theme products are behaving less alike.

Research order
Accuracy -> structure -> costs

Signal quality comes before a cosmetic one-day ranking.

Structure Details

Average boundary accuracy is 73.8%. The table is sorted by accuracy first, then structure score, because a clean boundary history matters when comparing similar exposures.

This page does not choose a winner. It narrows the research field and sends users to single-ETF pages for boundary prices, replay context and risk notes.

Reading Guide

Compare structure together with fees, liquidity, holdings and tax context; a short-term signal is only one research layer.

Diagnostic Table

Trend bucketCountShare
strong bullish zone1191.7%
bullish-leaning zone18.3%
neutral zone00.0%
bearish-leaning zone00.0%
strong bearish zone00.0%

Sample Layers

History bucketCountShare
standard evaluation1191.7%
short-history evaluation18.3%

Representative ETFs

TickerNameTrendAccuracySample
VOOVVOOVstrong bullish zone74.4%standard evaluation
SPYVSPYVstrong bullish zone74.2%standard evaluation
SPYSPYstrong bullish zone74.1%standard evaluation
VOOVOOstrong bullish zone74.1%standard evaluation
IVVIVVstrong bullish zone74.1%standard evaluation
IVOOIVOOstrong bullish zone74.1%standard evaluation
SPYXSPYXstrong bullish zone73.9%standard evaluation
SPYISPYIstrong bullish zone73.8%standard evaluation
SPYGSPYGstrong bullish zone73.6%standard evaluation
VOOGVOOGstrong bullish zone73.5%standard evaluation
ISPYISPYstrong bullish zone73.4%short-history evaluation
SPYDSPYDbullish-leaning zone72.9%standard evaluation

Breadth Within The Benchmark

strong bullish zone
91.7% · 11/12
bullish-leaning zone
8.3% · 1/12
neutral zone
0.0% · 0/12
bearish-leaning zone
0.0% · 0/12
strong bearish zone
0.0% · 0/12

Comparison Logic

Same exposure, different behavior

Tracking one benchmark does not make every ETF identical once liquidity, fee drag and boundary quality diverge.

Why dispersion matters

A wider structure spread tells users the group is not moving as one block, even before checking a single day move.

What to verify next

Use the comparison page to narrow candidates, then confirm official holdings, fees, liquidity and detail-page replay context.

12-Factor Reading Frame

Position layer
Avg vs L3 0.7%

Separates names just above the midpoint from names already stretched away from it.

Replay layer
Upper 20d 0.0% / Lower 20d 0.0%

Upper confirmation and lower support quality can diverge even inside one peer set.

Sample layer
Average history 0 days

Sample depth changes how much weight a comparison deserves.

12-Factor Peer Comparison

TickerNameTrendLinesZoneStructure fitReplay fitvs L3vs L1L4 stateSamples
VOOVVOOVstrong bullish zone4--474.4%74.4%0.6%2.0%试探突破--
SPYVSPYVstrong bullish zone4--474.2%74.2%0.6%2.0%试探突破--
SPYSPYstrong bullish zone4--474.1%74.1%0.8%2.9%试探突破--
VOOVOOstrong bullish zone4--474.1%74.1%0.8%2.8%试探突破--
IVVIVVstrong bullish zone4--474.1%74.1%0.8%2.9%试探突破--
IVOOIVOOstrong bullish zone4--474.1%74.1%0.7%2.8%试探突破--
SPYXSPYXstrong bullish zone4--473.9%73.9%0.7%2.8%试探突破--
SPYISPYIstrong bullish zone4--473.8%73.8%0.5%2.0%试探突破--
SPYGSPYGstrong bullish zone4--473.6%73.6%0.8%3.7%试探突破--
VOOGVOOGstrong bullish zone4--473.5%73.5%0.9%3.7%试探突破--

Stage Replay Frame

Active phases
0/10

Shows how many ETFs currently have an open stage target from the detail-page replay logic.

Stage replay
54.2%

Average historical hit rate of completed phase samples, useful for judging evidence depth.

Boundary review
L4 60d 54.2% / Edge60 33.8

Combines target-zone replay with boundary-review quality instead of using price movement alone.

Detail-Page Stage Replay Comparison

TickerNameCurrent phaseTargetGapDaysReplay samplesHit rateAvg daysL4 15dL4 30dL4 60dStabilityEdge 20Edge 60
VOOVVOOV--229.290-0.2%--366.7%24.033.3%33.3%66.7%lower confidence 32.7%47.739.5
SPYVSPYV--63.596-0.2%--475.0%19.750.0%50.0%75.0%moderate 36.6%49.441.8
SPYSPYTracking781.9390.5%41250.0%45.00.0%0.0%50.0%moderate 40.1%38.933.0
VOOVOOTracking718.9300.6%41250.0%45.00.0%0.0%50.0%moderate 36.4%37.532.4
IVVIVVTracking786.2700.6%41250.0%45.00.0%0.0%50.0%moderate 38.3%35.431.6
IVOOIVOOTracking133.1470.4%22366.7%29.00.0%33.3%66.7%moderate 39.6%28.432.2
SPYXSPYXTracking64.0160.4%40450.0%38.50.0%25.0%50.0%moderate 36.2%45.334.9
SPYISPYITracking55.5312.1%36250.0%38.00.0%0.0%50.0%moderate 36.2%40.431.0
SPYGSPYG--124.4250.8%--450.0%16.025.0%50.0%50.0%moderate 37.8%30.331.4
VOOGVOOGTracking86.1600.5%15333.3%22.00.0%33.3%33.3%moderate 41.3%28.529.6

Research Use Cases

What it answers

Whether the current structure is broad, narrow, improving or defensive.

What it does not answer

It does not decide suitability, future return, tax treatment or position size.

Next step

Open representative ETF detail pages and verify holdings, costs and liquidity.

Risk note: comparison is based on current data and does not rank future returns.