FDVV vs SCHD: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
FDVV and SCHD are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. FDVV is Fidelity High Dividend ETF, while SCHD is Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF. SCHD is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has SCHD ahead on AIQ Score, 68 versus 61.
What is the main difference between FDVV and SCHD?
FDVV and SCHD have little in common: 15% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | FDVV | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 108 | 102 |
| Top-10 concentration | 35.4% | 42% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.77% | 3.04% |
| Average volume | 735,751 | 22,407,196 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.9% | +29.4% |
| YTD return | +9.1% | +26.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +13.3% | +9.8% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 11.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10% | -7.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -20.2% | -16.8% |
| Beta | 0.67 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 3.82 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 68/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 10/10 |
| Momentum | 61/100 | 79/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 81/100 | 71/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fidelity High Dividend ETF vs Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
SCHD leads
SCHD leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support SCHD, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SCHD over FDVV, 68 versus 61 as of Oct 21, 2026. SCHD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while FDVV holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SCHD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SCHD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. SCHD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fidelity High Dividend ETF and Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
FDVV vs SCHD: 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 | SCHD | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.06% | SCHD |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 108 | 102 | Similar |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 35.4% | 42% | FDVV |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.77% | 3.04% | SCHD |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -20.2% | -16.8% | SCHD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.9% | 11.3% | Similar |
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 SCHD 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.
- Quality57 vs 76SCHD +19
- Momentum61 vs 79SCHD +18
- Risk Resilience81 vs 71FDVV +10
- Value55 vs 51FDVV +4
2 of 4 evidence groups favor SCHD. SCHD’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; FDVV keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
SCHD's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FDVV and SCHD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SCHD (Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
FDVV (Fidelity High Dividend ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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 | SCHD | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.06% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 108 | 102 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 735,751 | 22,407,196 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 11.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10% | -7.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 2.02 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.67 | 0.22 | 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 SCHD share 14.85% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings.
73 holdings are unique to FDVV, and 78 holdings are unique to SCHD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
SCHD is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 42.01% of the fund, against 35.43% for FDVV (102 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 | SCHD | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| KOCOCA-COLA | 1.97% | 4.25% | 1.97% |
| PGPROCTER & GAMBLE | 1.67% | 3.89% | 1.67% |
| MOALTRIA GROUP INC | 1.53% | 2.89% | 1.53% |
| HDHOME DEPOT | 1.47% | 3.73% | 1.47% |
| FFORD MOTOR CO | 1.38% | 1.36% | 1.36% |
| PEPPEPSICO | 1.34% | 3.66% | 1.34% |
| BXBLACKSTONE | 1.26% | 2.34% | 1.26% |
| TXNTEXAS INSTRUMENT INC | 1.16% | 3.2% | 1.16% |
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 SCHD doesn’t
| Holding | FDVV | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| 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 SCHD adds that FDVV doesn’t
| Holding | SCHD | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 4.81% | 0.43% |
| ABTABBOTT LABORATORIES | 4.52% | Not held |
| AMGNAMGEN INC | 4.31% | Not held |
| CVXCHEVRON | 4.28% | Not held |
| KOCOCA-COLA | 4.25% | 1.97% |
| COPCONOCOPHILLIPS | 4.2% | 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 SCHD: five-year payout growth
FDVV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.80% a year against SCHD's 9.15%. SCHD never reduced its annual distribution in the window; FDVV did in 1 year. FDVV: The 2020 payout was 19.7% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | FDVV | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.80% | 9.15% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.025 | $0.676 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.636 | $1.048 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #6 of 33 | #8 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 SCHD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SCHD | 61 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | FDVV | Value 55 vs 51 |
| Technicals | SCHD | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs 1.9%; vs 200-day 3% vs 8.2% |
| Risk Resilience | FDVV | Risk Resilience 81 vs 71 |
| 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 SCHD 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 7 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 SCHD.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20SCHD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SCHD +7
- 61 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- SCHD +10
- 58 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- SCHD +2
- 55 vs 57
- 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
No signal that the other name lacks.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SCHD
- 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 (1.7%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
SCHD leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.09%, 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.
- 1FDVV closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to SCHD's edge.
- 2FDVV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SCHD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
SCHD leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FDVV | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | 4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | 2.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | 5.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | 12% |
| Year to date | 9.1% | 26.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.9% | 29.4% |
Technicals
SCHD has the stronger structure| Metric | FDVV | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.8 | 86 |
| ADX (14) | 16.5 | 30.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | 1.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3% | 8.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.3% | 12.6% |
Risk
FDVV is the more resilient| Metric | FDVV | SCHD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.67 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 2.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 3.82 |
| Max drawdown | -10% | -7.6% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -1.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 11.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.1% | -1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between FDVV and SCHD?
FDVV and SCHD have little in common: 15% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do FDVV and SCHD overlap?
FDVV and SCHD share 14.85% of their weighted exposure across 21 common holdings. 73 holdings are unique to FDVV, and 78 holdings are unique to SCHD. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, FDVV or SCHD?
They hold a similar number of positions: 108 for FDVV and 102 for SCHD.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
SCHD has the lower expense ratio, 0.06% a year against 0.15% for FDVV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
SCHD, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 3.04% against 2.77% for FDVV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 10.9% annualized for FDVV and 11.3% for SCHD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
SCHD fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -16.8% against -20.2% for FDVV.
Compare FDVV and SCHD 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.