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

MOAT vs RDVY: how they differ

MOAT and RDVY hold 10% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.

VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, MOAT and RDVY hold 10% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions MOAT and RDVY both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingMOATRDVY
Applied Materials Inc2.34%4.69%
NVIDIA Corp2.45%1.91%
Microsoft Corp2.20%1.45%
US Bancorp1.39%1.56%
Meta Platforms Inc1.17%1.50%
Charles Schwab Corp/The2.45%0.95%
Amphenol Corp1.50%0.54%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in MOATOnly in RDVY
Masco Corp 2.96%LAM RESEARCH CORP 4.42%
Kenvue Inc 2.59%KLA CORP 4.14%
Airbnb Inc 2.56%GE VERNOVA INC 2.80%
Palo Alto Networks Inc 2.51%BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (THE) 2.15%
Brown-Forman Corp 2.49%GE AEROSPACE 2.13%
Datadog Inc 2.44%ALPHABET INC 2.12%
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.43%WILLIAMS SONOMA INC 2.12%
Broadcom Inc 2.43%ROSS STORES INC 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 Jun 30, 2026.

MOAT and RDVY on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF
RDVY
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerVanEckFirst Trust
What it isMorningstar Wide MoatFirst Rising Dividend Achievers
Total return, 1 year+11.3%+22.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−6.2 pts+4.5 pts
Expense ratio0.46%0.47%
Already in the S&P 50091.6%94.4%
Holdings5571

MOAT in plain words

MOAT is an index equity fund tracking the Morningstar Wide Moat. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +11.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.46% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 55 positions, with the top ten at 25.3%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Aug 27, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

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, MOAT or RDVY?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, MOAT returned +11.3% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, MOAT or RDVY?
MOAT charges 0.46% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so MOAT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do MOAT and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 92% of MOAT and 94% of RDVY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 10% 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.

MOAT 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, MOAT against RDVY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/MOAT-RDVY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources