Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
QQQM vs RDVY: how they differ
QQQM and RDVY hold 20% of their weight in the same names, and QQQM returned more over the year.
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, QQQM and RDVY hold 20% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | QQQM | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corp | 8.52% | 2.12% |
| Alphabet Inc | 3.12% | 2.01% |
| Microsoft Corp | 5.89% | 1.94% |
| Meta Platforms Inc | 3.07% | 1.74% |
| Costco Wholesale Corp | 1.78% | 1.69% |
| Lam Research Corp | 1.66% | 3.09% |
| Apple Inc | 7.72% | 1.65% |
| Applied Materials Inc | 1.60% | 2.99% |
| Micron Technology Inc | 4.90% | 1.57% |
| KLA Corp | 1.03% | 2.47% |
| Booking Holdings Inc | 0.60% | 1.17% |
| Automatic Data Processing Inc | 0.47% | 1.98% |
| Only in QQQM | Only in RDVY |
|---|---|
| Amazon.com Inc 4.36% | The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation 2.46% |
| Advanced Micro Devices Inc 3.65% | The Travelers Companies, Inc. 2.26% |
| Tesla Inc 2.92% | GE Vernova Inc. 2.24% |
| Alphabet Inc 2.90% | Bank of America Corporation 2.18% |
| Broadcom Inc 2.75% | The Allstate Corporation 2.16% |
| Walmart Inc 2.29% | JPMorgan Chase & Co. 2.09% |
| Intel Corp 2.24% | Williams-Sonoma, Inc. 2.06% |
| Cisco Systems Inc 1.88% | Salesforce, Inc. 2.04% |
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 Sep 10, 2026.
| QQQM Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF | 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 | 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 | 0.15% | 0.47% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 96.7% | 94.4% |
| Holdings | 106 | 72 |
QQQM in plain words
QQQM 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 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Sep 10, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 106 positions, with the top ten at 47.1%. 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 Sep 10, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 72 positions, with the top ten at 24.1%. 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, QQQM or RDVY?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, QQQM returned +23.0% and RDVY returned +22.0%, so QQQM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, QQQM or RDVY?
- QQQM charges 0.15% a year and RDVY charges 0.47%, so QQQM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do QQQM and RDVY overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 97% of QQQM 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, QQQM against RDVY, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/qqqm-vs-rdvy Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources