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 QQQM: how they differ

FDVV and QQQM hold 28% of their weight in the same names, and QQQM returned more over the year.

Fidelity High Dividend ETF and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FDVV and QQQM hold 28% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FDVV and QQQM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFDVVQQQM
NVIDIA CORP6.86%8.16%
APPLE INC5.70%7.29%
MICROSOFT CORP4.50%5.32%
BROADCOM INC3.50%3.37%
ALPHABET INC2.21%3.52%
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC.1.32%1.22%
PEPSICO INC1.63%0.87%
META PLATFORMS INC0.74%2.97%
STARBUCKS CORP1.66%0.50%
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER CO INC1.24%0.30%
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC0.24%0.66%
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING INC0.21%0.39%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FDVVOnly in QQQM
JPMORGAN CHASE and CO 2.58%Micron Technology, Inc. 4.80%
COCA COLA CO 1.85%Amazon.com, Inc. 4.62%
PROCTER and GAMBLE CO 1.81%Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 3.70%
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 1.78%Tesla, Inc. 3.46%
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (THE) 1.71%Alphabet Inc. 3.26%
ALTRIA GROUP INC 1.70%Intel Corp. 2.52%
HOME DEPOT INC 1.66%Walmart Inc. 2.48%
TJX COMPANIES INC 1.65%Cisco Systems, Inc. 2.09%

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 QQQM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FDVV
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
QQQM
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityInvesco
What it isHigh DividendNasdaq-100
Total return, 1 year+17.2%+23.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.3 pts+5.5 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50086.7%96.7%
Holdings96101

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%.

QQQM in plain words

QQQM is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq-100. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +23.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 101 positions, with the top ten at 47.5%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FDVV or QQQM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FDVV returned +17.2% and QQQM returned +23.0%, so QQQM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FDVV or QQQM?
FDVV charges 0.15% a year and QQQM charges 0.15%, so FDVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FDVV and QQQM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FDVV and 97% of QQQM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 28% 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 QQQM, 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 QQQM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FDVV-QQQM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources