Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

FDVV vs FTEC: how they differ

FDVV and FTEC hold 23% of their weight in the same names, and FTEC returned more over the year.

Fidelity High Dividend ETF and Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FDVV and FTEC hold 23% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FDVV and FTEC both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFDVVFTEC
NVIDIA CORP6.86%18.00%
APPLE INC5.70%14.38%
MICROSOFT CORP4.50%9.54%
BROADCOM INC3.50%5.01%
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC.1.32%1.20%
IBM CORPORATION0.90%0.99%
DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC1.44%0.39%
HP INC0.86%0.14%
SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS INC0.96%0.11%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FDVVOnly in FTEC
JPMORGAN CHASE and CO 2.58%Micron Technology Inc 2.64%
ALPHABET INC 2.21%Advanced Micro Devices Inc 2.60%
COCA COLA CO 1.85%Intel Corp 1.99%
PROCTER and GAMBLE CO 1.81%Cisco Systems Inc 1.66%
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 1.78%Lam Research Corp 1.49%
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (THE) 1.71%Applied Materials Inc 1.45%
ALTRIA GROUP INC 1.70%Palantir Technologies Inc 1.40%
HOME DEPOT INC 1.66%Oracle Corp 1.22%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026.

FDVV and FTEC on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FDVV
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
FTEC
Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityFidelity
What it isHigh DividendMSCI Information Technology
Total return, 1 year+17.2%+35.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.3 pts+18.2 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50086.7%86.2%
Holdings96282

FDVV in plain words

FDVV is an index equity fund tracking the High Dividend. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 96 positions, with the top ten at 32.5%.

FTEC in plain words

FTEC is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI Information Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +35.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 86% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 282 positions, with the top ten at 58.8%. It sat 3.7% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FDVV or FTEC?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FDVV returned +17.2% and FTEC returned +35.7%, so FTEC returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FDVV or FTEC?
FDVV charges 0.15% a year and FTEC charges 0.08%, so FTEC is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FDVV and FTEC overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FDVV and 86% of FTEC by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 23% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

FDVV against FTEC, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, FDVV against FTEC, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FDVV-FTEC Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources