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 MTUM: how they differ

FDVV and MTUM hold 20% of their weight in the same names, and MTUM returned more over the year.

Fidelity High Dividend ETF and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FDVV and MTUM hold 20% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FDVV and MTUM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFDVVMTUM
NVIDIA CORP6.86%4.65%
BROADCOM INC3.50%5.41%
JPMORGAN CHASE and CO2.58%2.87%
ALPHABET INC2.21%2.95%
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (THE)1.71%1.69%
WELLS FARGO and CO1.52%1.26%
IBM CORPORATION0.90%1.20%
TJX COMPANIES INC1.65%0.90%
JOHNSON and JOHNSON0.49%3.76%
CATERPILLAR INC0.46%3.21%
GE AEROSPACE0.34%1.90%
RTX CORP0.29%1.46%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FDVVOnly in MTUM
APPLE INC 5.70%MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. 5.57%
MICROSOFT CORP 4.50%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. 4.04%
COCA COLA CO 1.85%INTEL CORPORATION 3.84%
PROCTER and GAMBLE CO 1.81%LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION 3.62%
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 1.78%EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 3.44%
ALTRIA GROUP INC 1.70%WALMART INC. 2.76%
HOME DEPOT INC 1.66%GE VERNOVA INC. 2.54%
STARBUCKS CORP 1.66%ALPHABET INC. 2.39%

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 MTUM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FDVV
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityiShares
What it isHigh DividendMSCI USA Momentum Factor
Total return, 1 year+17.2%+21.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.3 pts+4.3 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50086.7%98.2%
Holdings96125

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%.

MTUM in plain words

MTUM is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Momentum Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 98% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 125 positions, with the top ten at 40.5%. It sat 11.1% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FDVV or MTUM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FDVV returned +17.2% and MTUM returned +21.8%, so MTUM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FDVV or MTUM?
FDVV charges 0.15% a year and MTUM charges 0.15%, so FDVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FDVV and MTUM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FDVV and 98% of MTUM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 20% 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 MTUM, 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 MTUM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FDVV-MTUM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources