Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

AVDV vs DYNF: how they differ

AVDV and DYNF hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and AVDV returned more over the year.

Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF and iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, AVDV and DYNF hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions AVDV and DYNF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingAVDVDYNF
d'Amico International Shipping SA0.10%0.12%
AMG Critical Materials NV0.06%0.03%
AEP Plantations PLC0.01%0.10%
Humm Group Ltd0.00%0.01%
Terracom Ltd0.00%0.02%
Costain Group PLC0.00%0.19%
Strike Energy Ltd0.00%0.28%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in AVDVOnly in DYNF
AT&S Austria Technologie & Systemtechnik 1.72%NVIDIA 8.13%
Mitsui Kinzoku Co Ltd 1.38%APPLE 7.62%
Clal Insurance Enterprises Holdings Ltd 0.74%MICROSOFT 4.75%
Hudbay Minerals Inc 0.67%AMAZON.COM INC 4.09%
OceanaGold Corp 0.63%JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 3.46%
Perseus Mining Ltd 0.63%EXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP 2.73%
Coeur Mining Inc 0.61%BROADCOM INC 2.59%
Whitehaven Coal Ltd 0.61%META PLATFORMS CLASS A 2.42%

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 May 31, 2026 and Sep 10, 2026.

AVDV and DYNF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
AVDV
Avantis International Small Cap Value ETF
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerAvantisiShares
What it isInternational Small Cap ValueU.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active
Total return, 1 year+31.0%+20.8%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+13.5 pts+3.3 pts
Expense ratio0.36%0.26%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%98.8%
Holdings1751234

AVDV in plain words

AVDV is an index equity fund tracking the International Small Cap Value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +31.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.36% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1751 positions, with the top ten at 8.2%.

DYNF in plain words

DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 234 positions, with the top ten at 40.3%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, AVDV or DYNF?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AVDV returned +31.0% and DYNF returned +20.8%, so AVDV returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, AVDV or DYNF?
AVDV charges 0.36% a year and DYNF charges 0.26%, so DYNF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do AVDV and DYNF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of AVDV and 99% of DYNF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 0% 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.

AVDV against DYNF, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 13, 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, AVDV against DYNF, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/avdv-vs-dynf Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources