Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
QQQ vs RDVY: how they differ
QQQ and RDVY hold 20% of their weight in the same names, and QQQ returned more over the year.
Invesco QQQ Trust and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, QQQ and RDVY hold 20% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | QQQ | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| Alphabet Inc. | 3.52% | 2.12% |
| NVIDIA Corp. | 8.16% | 1.91% |
| Micron Technology, Inc. | 4.80% | 1.83% |
| Lam Research Corp. | 1.75% | 4.42% |
| Costco Wholesale Corp. | 1.86% | 1.73% |
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 1.57% | 4.69% |
| Meta Platforms, Inc. | 2.97% | 1.50% |
| Microsoft Corp. | 5.32% | 1.45% |
| Apple Inc. | 7.29% | 1.44% |
| KLA Corp. | 1.11% | 4.14% |
| Western Digital Corp. | 0.79% | 0.59% |
| Booking Holdings Inc. | 0.58% | 1.18% |
| Only in QQQ | Only in RDVY |
|---|---|
| Amazon.com, Inc. 4.62% | GE VERNOVA INC 2.80% |
| Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. 3.70% | BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (THE) 2.15% |
| Tesla, Inc. 3.46% | GE AEROSPACE 2.13% |
| Broadcom Inc. 3.37% | WILLIAMS SONOMA INC 2.12% |
| Alphabet Inc. 3.26% | ALLSTATE CORP (THE) 2.01% |
| Intel Corp. 2.52% | TRAVELERS COMPANIES INC (THE) 2.00% |
| Walmart Inc. 2.48% | SNAP-ON INC 2.00% |
| Cisco Systems, Inc. 2.09% | CHUBB LTD (SWITZERLAND) 1.97% |
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 and May 31, 2026.
| QQQ Invesco QQQ Trust | RDVY First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Invesco | First Trust |
| What it is | Nasdaq-100, book from QQQM | First Rising Dividend Achievers |
| Total return, 1 year | +23.0% | +22.0% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +5.5 pts | +4.5 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.47% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 96.7% | 94.4% |
| Holdings | 101 | 71 |
QQQ in plain words
QQQ 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. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. 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.
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, QQQ or RDVY?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, QQQ returned +23.0% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so QQQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, QQQ or RDVY?
- QQQ charges 0.18% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so QQQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do QQQ and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 97% of QQQ and 94% of RDVY by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 20% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, QQQ against RDVY, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/QQQ-RDVY Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources