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

RDVY vs VT: how they differ

RDVY and VT hold 15% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.

First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, RDVY and VT hold 15% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions RDVY and VT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingRDVYVT
ALPHABET INC2.12%2.04%
NVIDIA CORP1.91%4.22%
MICROSOFT CORP1.45%2.73%
APPLE INC1.44%3.53%
META PLATFORMS INC1.50%1.21%
JP MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY1.91%0.72%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC1.83%0.52%
VISA INC1.82%0.50%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP1.73%0.41%
MASTERCARD INC1.19%0.36%
BANK OF AMERICA CORP1.96%0.31%
LAM RESEARCH CORP4.42%0.29%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in RDVYOnly in VT
CHUBB LTD (SWITZERLAND) 1.97%Amazon.com Inc 2.29%
ACCENTURE PLC 1.00%Broadcom Inc 1.74%
EVEREST GROUP LTD 0.54%Alphabet Inc 1.61%
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL PLC 0.39%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 1.52%
Tesla Inc 0.97%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc 0.69%
Eli Lilly & Co 0.68%
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 0.64%

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.

RDVY and VT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
RDVY
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
VT
Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFirst TrustVanguard
What it isFirst Rising Dividend AchieversTotal World Stock
Total return, 1 year+22.0%+18.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.5 pts+1.4 pts
Expense ratio0.47%0.06%
Already in the S&P 50094.4%55.2%
Holdings7110042

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.

VT in plain words

VT is an index equity fund tracking the Total World Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 55% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 10042 positions, with the top ten at 21.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, RDVY or VT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, RDVY returned +22.0% and VT returned +18.9%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, RDVY or VT?
RDVY charges 0.47% a year and VT charges 0.06%, so VT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do RDVY and VT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of RDVY and 55% of VT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 15% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources