Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
RDVY vs SPHQ: how they differ
RDVY and SPHQ hold 27% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, RDVY and SPHQ hold 27% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | RDVY | SPHQ |
|---|---|---|
| Lam Research Corporation | 3.09% | 4.10% |
| Applied Materials, Inc. | 2.99% | 2.39% |
| KLA Corporation | 2.47% | 2.33% |
| GE Vernova Inc. | 2.24% | 3.92% |
| Visa Inc. (Class A) | 1.98% | 5.68% |
| GE Aerospace | 1.88% | 3.62% |
| Costco Wholesale Corporation | 1.69% | 3.85% |
| Apple Inc. | 1.65% | 5.60% |
| Mastercard Incorporated | 1.33% | 5.78% |
| Automatic Data Processing, Inc. | 1.98% | 1.06% |
| Accenture plc | 1.45% | 0.96% |
| The Progressive Corporation | 0.77% | 1.38% |
| Only in RDVY | Only in SPHQ |
|---|---|
| The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation 2.46% | Netflix Inc 4.00% |
| Bank of America Corporation 2.18% | Cisco Systems Inc 3.51% |
| NVIDIA Corporation 2.12% | Sandisk Corp 3.36% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. 2.09% | Procter & Gamble Co/The 2.86% |
| Salesforce, Inc. 2.04% | QUALCOMM Inc 2.51% |
| Alphabet Inc. (Class A) 2.01% | Texas Instruments Inc 2.11% |
| Chubb Limited 1.99% | Newmont Corp 1.98% |
| Microsoft Corporation 1.94% | AppLovin Corp 1.67% |
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.
| RDVY First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF | SPHQ Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | First Trust | Invesco |
| What it is | First Rising Dividend Achievers | S&P 500 Quality |
| Total return, 1 year | +22.0% | +17.4% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +4.5 pts | −0.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.47% | 0.15% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 94.4% | 99.9% |
| Holdings | 72 | 100 |
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.
SPHQ in plain words
SPHQ is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 Quality. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.4% 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, 100% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 100 positions, with the top ten at 43.4%. It sat 6.1% below its high of Jun 30, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, RDVY or SPHQ?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, RDVY returned +22.0% and SPHQ returned +17.4%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, RDVY or SPHQ?
- RDVY charges 0.47% a year and SPHQ charges 0.15%, so SPHQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do RDVY and SPHQ overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 94% of RDVY and 100% of SPHQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 27% 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, RDVY against SPHQ, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/rdvy-vs-sphq Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources