FDVV vs QQQ: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
FDVV and QQQ are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. FDVV is Fidelity High Dividend ETF, while QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has FDVV ahead on AIQ Score, 61 versus 51.
What is the main difference between FDVV and QQQ?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while FDVV spreads across 9 sectors with none above 31%.
| Metric | FDVV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.18% |
| Holdings | 108 | 107 |
| Top-10 concentration | 35.4% | 47% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.77% | 0.43% |
| Average volume | 735,751 | 37,968,274 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.9% | +19.6% |
| YTD return | +9.1% | +16.8% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +13.2% | +14.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 19.9% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10% | -12.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -20.2% | -35.1% |
| Beta | 0.67 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 1.20 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 51/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 4/10 |
| Momentum | 61/100 | 21/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 81/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fidelity High Dividend ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
FDVV leads
FDVV leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support FDVV, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FDVV over QQQ, 61 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. FDVV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. FDVV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FDVV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. FDVV lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FDVV now leads by 10.
Compare Fidelity High Dividend ETF and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
FDVV vs QQQ: 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 | QQQ | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.18% | FDVV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 108 | 107 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 35.4% | 47% | FDVV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.77% | 0.43% | FDVV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -20.2% | -35.1% | FDVV |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.9% | 19.9% | 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 FDVV and QQQ 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 21FDVV +40
- Quality57 vs 82QQQ +25
- Value55 vs 35FDVV +20
- Risk Resilience81 vs 72FDVV +9
3 of 4 evidence groups favor FDVV. FDVV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QQQ keeps a meaningful quality 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: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
FDVV's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FDVV and QQQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FDVV (Fidelity High Dividend ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 15.4% 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 | QQQ | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.18% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 108 | 107 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 735,751 | 37,968,274 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 19.9% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10% | -12.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 0.77 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.67 | 1.45 | 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 QQQ share 28.15% of their weighted exposure across 19 common holdings.
75 holdings are unique to FDVV, and 83 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QQQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.96% of the fund, against 35.43% for FDVV (107 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 | QQQ | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 7.15% | 8.49% | 7.15% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 6.54% | 7.71% | 6.54% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.18% | 5.88% | 5.18% |
| AVGOBROADCOM INC | 2.88% | 2.75% | 2.75% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 1.82% | 3.11% | 1.82% |
| TXNTEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC | 1.16% | 1.04% | 1.04% |
| PEPPEPSICO INC | 1.34% | 0.83% | 0.83% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 0.75% | 3.07% | 0.75% |
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 QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | FDVV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| DELLDELL TECHNOLOGIES INC CL C | 3.33% | Not held |
| JPMJPMORGAN CHASE & CO | 2.77% | Not held |
| BACBANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION | 1.99% | Not held |
| KOCOCA COLA CO | 1.97% | Not held |
| GSGOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC | 1.8% | Not held |
| PMPHILIP MORRIS INTL INC | 1.8% | Not held |
What QQQ adds that FDVV doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.89% | Not held |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.36% | Not held |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.64% | Not held |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.07% | 0.75% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 2.92% | Not held |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 2.9% | 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 QQQ: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.99% a year against FDVV's 9.80%. FDVV: The 2020 payout was 19.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | FDVV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.80% | 9.99% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.025 | $1.737 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.636 | $2.795 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #6 of 33 | #56 of 138 |
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 51 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | FDVV | Value 55 vs 35 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 3% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | FDVV | Risk Resilience 81 vs 72 |
| 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 QQQ 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 moderate at 10 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20FDVV lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FDVV now leads by 10.
- Today
- FDVV +10
- 61 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- FDVV +1
- 58 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +10
- 55 vs 65
- 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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.86%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
QQQ 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, 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.
- 1QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to FDVV's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown 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.
- 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
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FDVV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | 9.1% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.9% | 19.6% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | FDVV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.8 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 16.5 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.3% | 15.4% |
Risk
FDVV is the more resilient| Metric | FDVV | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.67 | 1.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -10% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 19.9% |
| 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 QQQ?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while FDVV spreads across 9 sectors with none above 31%.
How much do FDVV and QQQ overlap?
FDVV and QQQ share 28.15% of their weighted exposure across 19 common holdings. 75 holdings are unique to FDVV, and 83 holdings are unique to QQQ. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, FDVV or QQQ?
They hold a similar number of positions: 108 for FDVV and 107 for QQQ.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
FDVV has the lower expense ratio, 0.15% a year against 0.18% for QQQ.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
FDVV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.77% against 0.43% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQ has been more volatile over the past year, at 19.9% 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 -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare FDVV and QQQ 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.