FDVV vs VYM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
FDVV and VYM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. FDVV is Fidelity High Dividend ETF, while VYM is Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF. VYM is broader by holdings count, with 613 positions versus 108 for FDVV. FDVV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VYM ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 61.
What is the main difference between FDVV and VYM?
VYM holds 613 positions to FDVV's 108, and 30% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | FDVV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 108 | 613 |
| Top-10 concentration | 35.4% | 26.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.77% | 2.28% |
| Average volume | 735,751 | 1,227,061 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +11.9% | +15.5% |
| YTD return | +9.1% | +12.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +13.3% | +11.4% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 10.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10% | -7.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -20.2% | -15.9% |
| Beta | 0.67 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 1.71 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 61/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 61/100 | 67/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 81/100 | 80/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fidelity High Dividend ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
VYM leads
VYM leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from FDVV.
Fragile: 0 of 4 evidence groups support VYM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fidelity High Dividend ETF
Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VYM over FDVV, 64 versus 61 as of Oct 21, 2026. VYM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. VYM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VYM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. VYM lead: Reversed — FDVV led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VYM now leads by 3.
Compare Fidelity High Dividend ETF and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
FDVV vs VYM: 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 | VYM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.15% | 0.04% | VYM |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 108 | 613 | VYM |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 35.4% | 26.2% | VYM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.77% | 2.28% | FDVV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -20.2% | -15.9% | VYM |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.9% | 10.1% | 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 VYM 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 65VYM +8
- Momentum61 vs 67VYM +6
- Value55 vs 52Even
- Risk Resilience81 vs 80Even
0 of 4 evidence groups favor VYM. VYM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 +4
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VYM's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FDVV and VYM both carry a full feed there.
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 | VYM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.15% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 108 | 613 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 735,751 | 1,227,061 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 10.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -10% | -7.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 1.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.67 | 0.56 | 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 VYM share 29.79% of their weighted exposure across 61 common holdings.
33 holdings are unique to FDVV, and 543 holdings are unique to VYM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
FDVV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 35.43% of the fund, against 26.16% for VYM (108 holdings vs 613). 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 | VYM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.88% | 7.36% | 2.88% |
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 2.77% | 3.82% | 2.77% |
| BACBANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION | 1.99% | 1.67% | 1.67% |
| KOCOCA COLA CO | 1.97% | 1.38% | 1.38% |
| PGPROCTER & GAMBLE CO | 1.67% | 1.37% | 1.37% |
| HDHOME DEPOT INC | 1.47% | 1.34% | 1.34% |
| PMPHILIP MORRIS INTL INC | 1.8% | 1.21% | 1.21% |
| GSGOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC | 1.8% | 1.13% | 1.13% |
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 VYM doesn’t
| Holding | FDVV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | 0.5% |
| GOOGLALPHABET INC CL A | 1.82% | Not held |
| BBYBEST BUY CO INC | 1.68% | 0.07% |
What VYM adds that FDVV doesn’t
| Holding | VYM | FDVV |
|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 7.36% | 2.88% |
| XOMExxonMobil Holdings Corp | 2.63% | Not held |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 2.51% | 0.54% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc | 1.86% | Not held |
| ABBVAbbVie Inc | 1.8% | 0.46% |
| UNHUnitedHealth Group Inc | 1.52% | 0.47% |
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 VYM: five-year payout growth
FDVV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.80% a year against VYM's 3.79%. VYM 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 | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.80% | 3.79% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.025 | $2.906 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.636 | $3.501 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #6 of 33 | #21 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
0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VYM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 61 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 55 vs 52 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs 0%; vs 200-day 3% vs 2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 81 vs 80 |
| 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 VYM 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 VYM.
How the comparison changed
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20VYM lead: Reversed — FDVV led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; VYM now leads by 3.
- Today
- VYM +3
- 61 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VYM +3
- 58 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- FDVV +1
- 55 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when VYM moved ahead of FDVV.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VYM
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bullish Crossover.
VYM 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, 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 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to VYM's edge.
- 2FDVV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
VYM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FDVV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | 1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | 4.4% |
| Year to date | 9.1% | 12.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.9% | 15.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FDVV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.8 | 80.5 |
| ADX (14) | 16.5 | 24.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3% | 2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 9.3% | 8.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FDVV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.67 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 1.71 |
| Max drawdown | -10% | -7.2% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.9% | 10.1% |
| 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 VYM?
VYM holds 613 positions to FDVV's 108, and 30% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do FDVV and VYM overlap?
FDVV and VYM share 29.79% of their weighted exposure across 61 common holdings. 33 holdings are unique to FDVV, and 543 holdings are unique to VYM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, FDVV or VYM?
VYM holds more positions: 613 versus 108 for FDVV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VYM has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.15% for FDVV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
FDVV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.77% against 2.28% for VYM.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 10.9% annualized for FDVV and 10.1% for VYM.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VYM fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -15.9% against -20.2% for FDVV.
Compare FDVV and VYM 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.