FVD vs HDV: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
FVD and HDV are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. FVD is First Trust Value Line Dividend Index Fund, while HDV is iShares Core High Dividend ETF. FVD is broader by holdings count, with 243 positions versus 79 for HDV. HDV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has FVD ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 62.
What is the main difference between FVD and HDV?
FVD holds 243 positions to HDV's 79, and 18% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | FVD | HDV |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.62% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 243 | 79 |
| Top-10 concentration | 4.5% | 52.6% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.26% | 2.83% |
| Average volume | 551,373 | 4,277,499 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +8.8% | +23.9% |
| YTD return | +7.6% | +23% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.1% | +12.9% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.3% | 11.6% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -6.6% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -16.4% | -15.4% |
| Beta | 0.18 | -0.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | 1.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.82 | 2.64 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 62/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 8/10 |
| Momentum | 79/100 | 79/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 69/100 | 61/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
First Trust Value Line Dividend Index Fund vs iShares Core High Dividend ETF
FVD leads
FVD leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support FVD, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Trust Value Line Dividend Index Fund
iShares Core High Dividend ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FVD over HDV, 63 versus 62 as of Oct 21, 2026. FVD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while HDV holds the stronger quality profile. FVD also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FVD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. FVD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare First Trust Value Line Dividend Index Fund and iShares Core High Dividend ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
FVD vs HDV: 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 | FVD | HDV | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.62% | 0.08% | HDV |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 243 | 79 | FVD |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 4.5% | 52.6% | FVD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.26% | 2.83% | HDV |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -16.4% | -15.4% | Similar |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.3% | 11.6% | FVD |
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 FVD and HDV 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.
- Value55 vs 44FVD +11
- Quality55 vs 65HDV +10
- Risk Resilience69 vs 61FVD +8
- Momentum79 vs 79Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor FVD. FVD’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; HDV 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 +13
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Value +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 9 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: FVD moved ahead of HDV in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FVD and HDV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FVD (First Trust Value Line Dividend Index Fund): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
HDV (iShares Core High Dividend ETF): the counter-case, on quality, 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 | FVD | HDV | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.62% | 0.08% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 243 | 79 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 551,373 | 4,277,499 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.3% | 11.6% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -6.6% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | 1.53 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.18 | -0.05 | 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
FVD and HDV share 18.3% of their weighted exposure across 55 common holdings.
186 holdings are unique to FVD, and 20 holdings are unique to HDV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
HDV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 52.61% of the fund, against 4.51% for FVD (79 holdings vs 243). 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 | FVD | HDV | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVXCHEVRON | 0.45% | 6.58% | 0.45% |
| WMBWILLIAMS | 0.44% | 1.19% | 0.44% |
| MOALTRIA GROUP INC | 0.44% | 3% | 0.44% |
| PGPROCTER & GAMBLE | 0.44% | 4.4% | 0.44% |
| KMIKINDER MORGAN | 0.44% | 1.04% | 0.44% |
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 0.43% | 8.22% | 0.43% |
| MDTMEDTRONIC PLC | 0.43% | 1.84% | 0.43% |
| ABBVABBVIE | 0.43% | 6.08% | 0.43% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What FVD adds that HDV doesn’t
| Holding | FVD | HDV |
|---|---|---|
| BNSThe Bank of Nova Scotia | 0.47% | Not held |
| TDThe Toronto-Dominion Bank | 0.45% | Not held |
| TAKTakeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (ADR) | 0.45% | Not held |
| VRSNVeriSign, Inc. | 0.45% | Not held |
| PFGPrincipal Financial Group, Inc. | 0.45% | Not held |
| SHELShell plc (ADR) | 0.45% | Not held |
What HDV adds that FVD doesn’t
| Holding | HDV | FVD |
|---|---|---|
| XOMEXXONMOBIL HOLDINGS CORP | 8.22% | 0.43% |
| CVXCHEVRON | 6.58% | 0.45% |
| ABBVABBVIE | 6.08% | 0.43% |
| VZVERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC | 5.78% | 0.42% |
| PFEPFIZER | 4.68% | 0.43% |
| MRKMERCK & CO INC | 4.46% | 0.42% |
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.
FVD vs HDV: five-year payout growth
FVD grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.04% a year against HDV's 1.85%.
| Dividend metric | FVD | HDV |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.04% | 1.85% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.811 | $0.714 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.087 | $0.782 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 2 |
| Peer rank | #13 of 33 | #30 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 FVD. 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 | 63 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | FVD | Value 55 vs 44 |
| Technicals | HDV | Price vs 50-day 0.9% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day 2.4% vs 8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | FVD | Risk Resilience 69 vs 61 |
| 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 FVD and HDV 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (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 FVD.
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20FVD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FVD +1
- 63 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- HDV +2
- 60 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 58 vs 58
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when FVD moved ahead of HDV.
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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only FVD
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only HDV
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
Both carry 8 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
FVD 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.04%, AIQ +3 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.86%, 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.
- 1HDV closes the Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to FVD's edge.
- 2HDV's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FVD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
HDV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FVD | HDV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | 3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.7% | 5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.6% | 6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.6% | 13.5% |
| Year to date | 7.6% | 23% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.8% | 23.9% |
Technicals
HDV has the stronger structure| Metric | FVD | HDV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.1 | 86.2 |
| ADX (14) | 33.5 | 29.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.9% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.4% | 8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.4% | 12.4% |
Risk
FVD is the more resilient| Metric | FVD | HDV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.18 | -0.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | 1.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.82 | 2.64 |
| Max drawdown | -8.1% | -6.6% |
| Current drawdown | -2.9% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.3% | 11.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.9% | -1.1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between FVD and HDV?
FVD holds 243 positions to HDV's 79, and 18% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do FVD and HDV overlap?
FVD and HDV share 18.3% of their weighted exposure across 55 common holdings. 186 holdings are unique to FVD, and 20 holdings are unique to HDV. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, FVD or HDV?
FVD holds more positions: 243 versus 79 for HDV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
HDV has the lower expense ratio, 0.08% a year against 0.62% for FVD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
HDV, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.83% against 2.26% for FVD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
HDV has been more volatile over the past year, at 11.6% annualized against 10.3% for FVD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
Their worst peak-to-trough falls over the past five years are similar: -16.4% for FVD and -15.4% for HDV.
Compare FVD and HDV 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.