EFAD vs FDVV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
EFAD and FDVV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. EFAD is ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF, while FDVV is Fidelity High Dividend ETF. FDVV is broader by holdings count, with 108 positions versus 77 for EFAD. FDVV has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has FDVV ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 56.
| Metric | EFAD | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 77 | 108 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.48% | 2.77% |
| Average volume | 3,126 | 735,751 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +6.8% | +11.9% |
| YTD return | +8.2% | +9.1% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +1.7% | +13.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.8% | 10.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.3% | -10% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -34% | -20.2% |
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | 0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 1.07 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 56/100 | 61/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 79/100 | 61/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 81/100 | 81/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF vs Fidelity High Dividend ETF
FDVV leads
FDVV leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support FDVV, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FDVV over EFAD, 61 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. FDVV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while EFAD holds the stronger momentum profile. FDVV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FDVV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. FDVV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF and Fidelity High Dividend ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
EFAD vs FDVV: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | EFAD | FDVV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.5% | 0.15% | FDVV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 77 | 108 | FDVV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.48% | 2.77% | FDVV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -34% | -20.2% | FDVV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.8% | 10.9% | FDVV |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare EFAD and FDVV against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality30 vs 57FDVV +27
- Momentum79 vs 61EFAD +18
- Value50 vs 55FDVV +5
- Risk Resilience81 vs 81Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor FDVV. FDVV’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; EFAD keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
FDVV's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EFAD and FDVV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FDVV (Fidelity High Dividend ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
EFAD (ProShares - MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | EFAD | FDVV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 0.15% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 77 | 108 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,126 | 735,751 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.8% | 10.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10.3% | -10% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | 0.69 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.67 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
EFAD vs FDVV: five-year payout growth
EFAD grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 12.67% a year against FDVV's 9.80%. EFAD: The 2020 payout was 21.9% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. EFAD: The payout jumped 110.0% in 2021, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change. FDVV: The 2020 payout was 19.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | EFAD | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 12.67% | 9.80% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.651 | $1.025 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.182 | $1.636 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #3 of 33 | #6 of 33 |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FDVV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FDVV | 56 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | FDVV | Value 50 vs 55 |
| Technicals | EFAD | Price vs 50-day 2.4% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 5.1% vs 3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 81 vs 81 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EFAD and FDVV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on FDVV.
How the comparison changed
41 daily snapshots · Sep 8 – Oct 20FDVV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FDVV +5
- 56 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- FDVV +3
- 55 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- FDVV +9
- 46 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only EFAD
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
EFAD is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.1%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.21%, AIQ +2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1EFAD closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to FDVV's edge.
- 2EFAD's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3FDVV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate FDVV's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
EFAD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EFAD | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.2% | -0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2% | -0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.5% | -1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | 5.6% |
| Year to date | 8.2% | 9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.8% | 11.9% |
Technicals
EFAD has the stronger structure| Metric | EFAD | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83.2 | 64.8 |
| ADX (14) | 18.2 | 16.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.4% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.1% | 3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.5% | 9.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | EFAD | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.73 | 0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | 0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 1.07 |
| Max drawdown | -10.3% | -10% |
| Current drawdown | -1% | -3.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.8% | 10.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.4% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, EFAD or FDVV?
FDVV holds more positions: 108 versus 77 for EFAD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
FDVV has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.5% for EFAD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
FDVV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.77% against 2.48% for EFAD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
EFAD has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.8% annualized against 10.9% for FDVV.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
FDVV fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -20.2% against -34% for EFAD.
Compare EFAD and FDVV with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.