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 RDVY: how they differ

FDVV and RDVY hold 14% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.

Fidelity High Dividend ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FDVV and RDVY hold 14% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FDVV and RDVY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFDVVRDVY
ALPHABET INC2.21%2.12%
NVIDIA CORP6.86%1.91%
JPMORGAN CHASE and CO2.58%1.91%
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION1.78%1.96%
MICROSOFT CORP4.50%1.45%
APPLE INC5.70%1.44%
US BANCORP DEL1.34%1.56%
WELLS FARGO and CO1.52%0.97%
META PLATFORMS INC0.74%1.50%
GE AEROSPACE0.34%2.13%
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING INC0.21%1.63%
PACCAR INC0.20%0.97%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FDVVOnly in RDVY
BROADCOM INC 3.50%APPLIED MATERIALS INC 4.69%
COCA COLA CO 1.85%LAM RESEARCH CORP 4.42%
PROCTER and GAMBLE CO 1.81%KLA CORP 4.14%
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (THE) 1.71%GE VERNOVA INC 2.80%
ALTRIA GROUP INC 1.70%BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (THE) 2.15%
HOME DEPOT INC 1.66%WILLIAMS SONOMA INC 2.12%
STARBUCKS CORP 1.66%ROSS STORES INC 2.01%
TJX COMPANIES INC 1.65%ALLSTATE CORP (THE) 2.01%

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 Jun 30, 2026.

FDVV and RDVY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FDVV
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
RDVY
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityFirst Trust
What it isHigh DividendFirst Rising Dividend Achievers
Total return, 1 year+17.2%+22.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.3 pts+4.5 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.47%
Already in the S&P 50086.7%94.4%
Holdings9671

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%.

RDVY in plain words

RDVY is an index equity fund tracking the First Rising Dividend Achievers. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.47% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 71 positions, with the top ten at 28.6%. It sat 3.9% below its high of Aug 13, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FDVV or RDVY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FDVV returned +17.2% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FDVV or RDVY?
FDVV charges 0.15% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so FDVV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FDVV and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FDVV and 94% of RDVY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 14% 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 RDVY, 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 RDVY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FDVV-RDVY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources