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 ONEQ: how they differ

FDVV and ONEQ hold 26% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.

Fidelity High Dividend ETF and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FDVV and ONEQ hold 26% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FDVV and ONEQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFDVVONEQ
NVIDIA CORP6.86%11.24%
APPLE INC5.70%10.04%
MICROSOFT CORP4.50%7.32%
BROADCOM INC3.50%4.64%
ALPHABET INC2.21%4.85%
META PLATFORMS INC0.74%3.03%
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC.1.32%0.60%
PEPSICO INC1.63%0.43%
STARBUCKS CORP1.66%0.24%
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC0.24%0.33%
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING INC0.21%0.19%
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER CO INC1.24%0.15%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FDVVOnly in ONEQ
JPMORGAN CHASE and CO 2.58%AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%
COCA COLA CO 1.85%ALPHABET INC 4.48%
PROCTER and GAMBLE CO 1.81%TESLA INC 3.58%
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 1.78%MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 2.38%
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (THE) 1.71%WALMART INC 2.02%
ALTRIA GROUP INC 1.70%ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC 1.84%
HOME DEPOT INC 1.66%INTEL CORP 1.25%
TJX COMPANIES INC 1.65%CISCO SYSTEMS INC 1.04%

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 and May 31, 2026.

FDVV and ONEQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FDVV
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityFidelity
What it isHigh DividendNasdaq Composite
Total return, 1 year+17.2%+20.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.3 pts+3.1 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.21%
Already in the S&P 50086.7%87.4%
Holdings961022

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%.

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FDVV or ONEQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FDVV returned +17.2% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FDVV or ONEQ?
FDVV charges 0.15% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so FDVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FDVV and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FDVV and 87% of ONEQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 26% 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 ONEQ, 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 ONEQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FDVV-ONEQ Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources