FVD vs KBWY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
FVD and KBWY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. FVD is First Trust Value Line Dividend Index Fund, while KBWY is Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF. FVD is broader by holdings count, with 243 positions versus 31 for KBWY. KBWY is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has FVD ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 46.
What is the main difference between FVD and KBWY?
FVD holds 243 positions to KBWY's 31, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | FVD | KBWY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.62% | 0.35% |
| Holdings | 243 | 31 |
| Top-10 concentration | 4.5% | 46.5% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 2.26% | 9.08% |
| Average volume | 551,373 | 207,889 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +8.8% | +5.3% |
| YTD return | +7.6% | +5.2% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +6.1% | +0.2% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 10.3% | 16.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -17.4% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -16.4% | -32.3% |
| Beta | 0.18 | 0.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.82 | 0.24 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 63/100 | 46/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 9/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 79/100 | 35/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 69/100 | 74/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
First Trust Value Line Dividend Index Fund vs Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF
FVD leads
FVD leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support FVD, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Trust Value Line Dividend Index Fund
Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FVD over KBWY, 63 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. FVD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while KBWY holds the stronger risk resilience profile. FVD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor FVD today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FVD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare First Trust Value Line Dividend Index Fund and Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
FVD vs KBWY: 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 | KBWY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.62% | 0.35% | KBWY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 243 | 31 | FVD |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 4.5% | 46.5% | FVD |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 2.26% | 9.08% | KBWY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -16.4% | -32.3% | FVD |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 10.3% | 16.7% | 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 KBWY 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.
- Momentum79 vs 35FVD +44
- Quality55 vs 42FVD +13
- Value55 vs 46FVD +9
- Risk Resilience69 vs 74KBWY +5
3 of 4 evidence groups favor FVD. FVD’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; KBWY 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 +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: Momentum +10
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
FVD's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FVD and KBWY 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 momentum and quality.
KBWY (Invesco KBW Premium Yield Equity REIT ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience — but at materially higher volatility, 20.4% against 11.4%.
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 | KBWY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.62% | 0.35% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 243 | 31 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 551,373 | 207,889 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 10.3% | 16.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -17.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | 0.15 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.18 | 0.38 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
How much of the same holdings they own
FVD and KBWY share 0.4% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.
240 holdings are unique to FVD, and 27 holdings are unique to KBWY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
KBWY is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.47% of the fund, against 4.51% for FVD (31 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 | KBWY | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| GLPIGaming and Leisure Properties Inc | 0.4% | 3.05% | 0.4% |
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 KBWY doesn’t
| Holding | FVD | KBWY |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| CVXChevron Corporation | 0.45% | Not held |
| VRSNVeriSign, Inc. | 0.45% | Not held |
| PFGPrincipal Financial Group, Inc. | 0.45% | Not held |
What KBWY adds that FVD doesn’t
| Holding | KBWY | FVD |
|---|---|---|
| IIPRInnovative Industrial Properties Inc | 6.29% | Not held |
| MRPMillrose Properties Inc | 5.66% | Not held |
| PKPark Hotels & Resorts Inc | 5.21% | Not held |
| GOODGladstone Commercial Corp | 4.83% | Not held |
| CHCTCommunity Healthcare Trust Inc | 4.74% | Not held |
| HIWHighwoods Properties Inc | 4.47% | 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.
FVD vs KBWY: five-year payout growth
FVD grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 6.04% a year against KBWY's -6.75%.
| Dividend metric | FVD | KBWY |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 6.04% | -6.75% |
| 2020 annual payout | $0.811 | $2.143 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.087 | $1.511 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 3 |
| Peer rank | #13 of 33 | #132 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 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 | FVD | 63 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | FVD | Value 55 vs 46 |
| Technicals | FVD | Price vs 50-day 0.9% vs -7.4%; vs 200-day 2.4% vs -4.8% |
| Risk Resilience | KBWY | Risk Resilience 69 vs 74 |
| 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 KBWY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 FVD.
How the comparison changed
41 daily snapshots · Sep 8 – Oct 20FVD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FVD +17
- 63 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- FVD +15
- 60 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- FVD +7
- 50 vs 43
- 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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only FVD
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.95%)
- 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
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross 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 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.41%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1KBWY closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to FVD's edge.
- 2KBWY'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
FVD leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FVD | KBWY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.7% | -5.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.6% | -13.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.6% | -2.4% |
| Year to date | 7.6% | 5.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.8% | 5.3% |
Technicals
FVD has the stronger structure| Metric | FVD | KBWY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.1 | 41.4 |
| ADX (14) | 33.5 | 53.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.9% | -7.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.4% | -4.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.4% | 20.4% |
Risk
KBWY is the more resilient| Metric | FVD | KBWY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.18 | 0.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.82 | 0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -8.1% | -17.4% |
| Current drawdown | -2.9% | -15.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 10.3% | 16.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -0.9% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between FVD and KBWY?
FVD holds 243 positions to KBWY's 31, and 0% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do FVD and KBWY overlap?
FVD and KBWY share 0.4% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings. 240 holdings are unique to FVD, and 27 holdings are unique to KBWY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, FVD or KBWY?
FVD holds more positions: 243 versus 31 for KBWY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
KBWY has the lower expense ratio, 0.35% a year against 0.62% for FVD.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
KBWY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 9.08% against 2.26% for FVD.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
KBWY has been more volatile over the past year, at 16.7% annualized against 10.3% for FVD.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
FVD fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -16.4% against -32.3% for KBWY.
Compare FVD and KBWY 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.