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

RDVY vs XLC: how they differ

RDVY and XLC hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and RDVY returned more over the year.

First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF and State Street(R) Communication Services Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, RDVY and XLC hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions RDVY and XLC both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingRDVYXLC
Alphabet Inc. (Class A)2.01%10.12%
Meta Platforms, Inc. (Class A)1.74%18.92%
Fox Corporation (Class A)0.44%2.37%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in RDVYOnly in XLC
Lam Research Corporation 3.09%ALPHABET INC CL C 8.10%
Applied Materials, Inc. 2.99%AT+T INC 5.19%
KLA Corporation 2.47%VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC 5.03%
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation 2.46%WALT DISNEY CO/THE 4.76%
The Travelers Companies, Inc. 2.26%WARNER BROS DISCOVERY INC 4.61%
GE Vernova Inc. 2.24%COMCAST CORP CLASS A 4.61%
Bank of America Corporation 2.18%NETFLIX INC 4.57%
Ross Stores, Inc. 2.16%T MOBILE US INC 4.52%

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 and XLC on the fields both publish, as of Sep 13, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
RDVY
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
XLC
State Street(R) Communication Services Select Sector SPDR(R) ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFirst TrustState Street
What it isFirst Rising Dividend AchieversCommunication services
Total return, 1 year+22.0%−2.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.5 pts−19.5 pts
Expense ratio0.47%0.08%
Already in the S&P 50094.4%100.0%
Holdings7226

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.

XLC in plain words

XLC is an index equity fund tracking the Communication services. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −2.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% 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 26 positions, with the top ten at 70.4%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Jan 30, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, RDVY or XLC?
In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, RDVY returned +22.0% and XLC returned −2.0%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, RDVY or XLC?
RDVY charges 0.47% a year and XLC charges 0.08%, so XLC is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do RDVY and XLC overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 94% of RDVY and 100% of XLC by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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 XLC, 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, RDVY against XLC, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/rdvy-vs-xlc Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources