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 VB: how they differ

FDVV and VB hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and FDVV returned more over the year.

Fidelity High Dividend ETF and Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FDVV and VB hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FDVV and VB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFDVVVB
ANNALY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT INC1.28%0.20%
BEST BUY CO INC1.21%0.18%
HEALTHPEAK PROPERTIES INC0.77%0.18%
OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS INC0.88%0.17%
GAMING AND LEISURE PROPERTIES INC0.86%0.15%
AES CORP0.92%0.13%
SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS INC0.96%0.12%
OLD REPUBLIC INTL CORP1.25%0.11%
UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES INC0.19%0.09%
VAIL RESORTS INC1.27%0.06%
OMNICOM GROUP INC0.04%0.25%
NEW YORK TIMES CO0.04%0.12%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FDVVOnly in VB
NVIDIA CORP 6.86%Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 0.55%
APPLE INC 5.70%Jabil Inc 0.49%
MICROSOFT CORP 4.50%REVOLUTION Medicines Inc 0.46%
BROADCOM INC 3.50%Astera Labs Inc 0.45%
JPMORGAN CHASE and CO 2.58%Natera Inc 0.45%
ALPHABET INC 2.21%EMCOR Group Inc 0.45%
COCA COLA CO 1.85%Twilio Inc 0.38%
PROCTER and GAMBLE CO 1.81%NRG Energy Inc 0.38%

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 VB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FDVV
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
VB
Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityVanguard
What it isHigh DividendSmall-Cap
Total return, 1 year+17.2%+15.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.3 pts−2.3 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50086.7%21.7%
Holdings961311

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%.

VB in plain words

VB is an index equity fund tracking the Small-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +15.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 22% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1311 positions, with the top ten at 4.3%. It sat 5.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FDVV or VB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FDVV returned +17.2% and VB returned +15.2%, so FDVV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FDVV or VB?
FDVV charges 0.15% a year and VB charges 0.03%, so VB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FDVV and VB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FDVV and 22% of VB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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 VB, 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 VB, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FDVV-VB Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources