FDVV vs KBWD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
FDVV and KBWD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. FDVV is Fidelity High Dividend ETF, while KBWD is Invesco KBW High Dividend Yield Financial ETF. FDVV is broader by holdings count, with 108 positions versus 40 for KBWD. FDVV has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has FDVV ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 52.
What is the main difference between FDVV and KBWD?
KBWD puts 58% of its assets in Financial Services, while FDVV spreads across 9 sectors with none above 31%.
| Metric | FDVV | KBWD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 5.39% |
| Holdings | 108 | 40 |
| Top-10 concentration | 35.4% | 37.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.77% | 16.6% |
| Average volume | 735,751 | 498,131 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.9% | -22.7% |
| YTD return | +9.1% | -23.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +13.2% | -2.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 17.5% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10% | -31.5% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -20.2% | -30.7% |
| Beta | 0.67 | 0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | -1.66 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | -2.48 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 52/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 61/100 | 25/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 81/100 | 64/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fidelity High Dividend ETF vs Invesco KBW High Dividend Yield Financial ETF
FDVV leads
FDVV leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 4 evidence groups support FDVV, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
Invesco KBW High Dividend Yield Financial ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FDVV over KBWD, 61 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. FDVV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while KBWD holds the stronger value profile. FDVV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FDVV today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. FDVV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fidelity High Dividend ETF and Invesco KBW High Dividend Yield Financial ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
FDVV vs KBWD: 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 | FDVV | KBWD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 5.39% | FDVV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 108 | 40 | FDVV |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 35.4% | 37.1% | Similar |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.77% | 16.6% | KBWD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -20.2% | -30.7% | FDVV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.9% | 17.5% | 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 FDVV and KBWD 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.
- Momentum61 vs 25FDVV +36
- Value55 vs 73KBWD +18
- Risk Resilience81 vs 64FDVV +17
- Quality57 vs 46FDVV +11
3 of 4 evidence groups favor FDVV. FDVV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; KBWD keeps a meaningful value 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: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
FDVV's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FDVV and KBWD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FDVV (Fidelity High Dividend ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
KBWD (Invesco KBW High Dividend Yield Financial ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 22.1% against 9.3%.
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 | FDVV | KBWD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 5.39% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 108 | 40 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 735,751 | 498,131 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 17.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10% | -31.5% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | -1.66 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.67 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
FDVV and KBWD share 2.63% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings.
92 holdings are unique to FDVV, and 36 holdings are unique to KBWD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
KBWD is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 37.07% of the fund, against 35.43% for FDVV (40 holdings vs 108). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | FDVV | KBWD | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRUPrudential Financial Inc | 1.46% | 1.77% | 1.46% |
| NLYAnnaly Capital Management Inc | 1.17% | 3.19% | 1.17% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What FDVV adds that KBWD doesn’t
| Holding | FDVV | KBWD |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA CORP | 7.15% | Not held |
| AAPLAPPLE INC | 6.54% | Not held |
| MSFTMICROSOFT CORP | 5.18% | Not held |
| DELLDELL TECHNOLOGIES INC CL C | 3.33% | Not held |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.88% | Not held |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE & CO | 2.77% | Not held |
What KBWD adds that FDVV doesn’t
| Holding | KBWD | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| FSKFS KKR Capital Corp | 4.2% | Not held |
| GSBDGoldman Sachs BDC Inc | 4.03% | Not held |
| ORCOrchid Island Capital Inc | 4% | Not held |
| IVRInvesco Mortgage Capital Inc | 3.82% | Not held |
| DXDynex Capital Inc | 3.7% | Not held |
| ARRARMOUR Residential REIT Inc | 3.67% | Not held |
Each list is a fund’s largest positions by weight that the other fund does not hold, or holds at less than half the weight.
FDVV vs KBWD: five-year payout growth
FDVV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.80% a year against KBWD's 1.85%. FDVV: The 2020 payout was 19.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. KBWD: The 2020 payout was 15.6% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | FDVV | KBWD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.80% | 1.85% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.025 | $1.600 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.636 | $1.754 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #6 of 33 | #29 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
3 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 | 61 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | KBWD | Value 55 vs 73 |
| Technicals | FDVV | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -12.9%; vs 200-day 3% vs -18.8% |
| Risk Resilience | FDVV | Risk Resilience 81 vs 64 |
| 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 FDVV and KBWD and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FDVV +9
- 61 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- FDVV +6
- 58 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- FDVV +3
- 55 vs 52
- 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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only FDVV
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.97%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.86%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only KBWD
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.86%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
KBWD 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.21%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.39%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1KBWD closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to FDVV's edge.
- 2KBWD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FDVV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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
FDVV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FDVV | KBWD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -12.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | -15.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | -21.9% |
| Year to date | 9.1% | -23.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.9% | -22.7% |
Technicals
FDVV has the stronger structure| Metric | FDVV | KBWD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.8 | 28.9 |
| ADX (14) | 16.5 | 53.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -12.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3% | -18.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.3% | 22.1% |
Risk
FDVV is the more resilient| Metric | FDVV | KBWD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.67 | 0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | -1.66 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | -2.48 |
| Max drawdown | -10% | -31.5% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -30.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 17.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between FDVV and KBWD?
KBWD puts 58% of its assets in Financial Services, while FDVV spreads across 9 sectors with none above 31%.
How much do FDVV and KBWD overlap?
FDVV and KBWD share 2.63% of their weighted exposure across 2 common holdings. 92 holdings are unique to FDVV, and 36 holdings are unique to KBWD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, FDVV or KBWD?
FDVV holds more positions: 108 versus 40 for KBWD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
FDVV has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 5.39% for KBWD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
KBWD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 16.6% against 2.77% for FDVV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
KBWD has been more volatile over the past year, at 17.5% 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 -30.7% for KBWD.
Compare FDVV and KBWD 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.