Data as of Sep 13, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
RDVY vs XLG: how they differ
RDVY and XLG hold 22% 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 Top 50 ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, RDVY and XLG hold 22% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | RDVY | XLG |
|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA Corporation | 2.12% | 12.79% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. | 2.09% | 2.29% |
| Alphabet Inc. (Class A) | 2.01% | 4.71% |
| Microsoft Corporation | 1.94% | 8.83% |
| Meta Platforms, Inc. (Class A) | 1.74% | 3.42% |
| Apple Inc. | 1.65% | 11.58% |
| Micron Technology, Inc. | 1.57% | 2.66% |
| Visa Inc. (Class A) | 1.98% | 1.47% |
| Mastercard Incorporated | 1.33% | 1.10% |
| Bank of America Corporation | 2.18% | 0.99% |
| Costco Wholesale Corporation | 1.69% | 0.97% |
| Lam Research Corporation | 3.09% | 0.90% |
| Only in RDVY | Only in XLG |
|---|---|
| The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation 2.46% | Amazon.com Inc 5.95% |
| The Travelers Companies, Inc. 2.26% | Broadcom Inc 4.12% |
| Ross Stores, Inc. 2.16% | Alphabet Inc 3.77% |
| The Allstate Corporation 2.16% | Tesla Inc 2.47% |
| Williams-Sonoma, Inc. 2.06% | Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.25% |
| Salesforce, Inc. 2.04% | Eli Lilly & Co 2.15% |
| Chubb Limited 1.99% | Advanced Micro Devices Inc 1.99% |
| Automatic Data Processing, Inc. 1.98% | ExxonMobil Holdings Corp 1.65% |
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 | XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | First Trust | Invesco |
| What it is | First Rising Dividend Achievers | S&P 500 top 50 |
| Total return, 1 year | +22.0% | +12.2% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +4.5 pts | −5.3 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.47% | 0.20% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 94.4% | 100.0% |
| Holdings | 72 | 52 |
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.
XLG in plain words
XLG is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 top 50. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% 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 52 positions, with the top ten at 60.3%.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, RDVY or XLG?
- In the year to Sep 13, 2026, with distributions reinvested, RDVY returned +22.0% and XLG returned +12.2%, so RDVY returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, RDVY or XLG?
- RDVY charges 0.47% a year and XLG charges 0.20%, so XLG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do RDVY and XLG overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 94% of RDVY and 100% of XLG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 22% 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 XLG, data as of Sep 13, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/rdvy-vs-xlg Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources