QDF vs RDVY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QDF and RDVY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QDF is Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF, while RDVY is First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF. QDF is broader by holdings count, with 144 positions versus 72 for RDVY. QDF has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has RDVY ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 53.
| Metric | QDF | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.47% |
| Holdings | 144 | 72 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.5% | 0.85% |
| Average volume | 24,427 | 1,098,784 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.5% | +21.1% |
| YTD return | +12.8% | +14.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.5% | +11.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 14.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -9.3% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -22.1% | -25.3% |
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | 1.10 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.51 | 1.92 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 57/100 | 60/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 87/100 | 85/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF vs First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
RDVY leads
RDVY leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 4 evidence groups support RDVY, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RDVY over QDF, 63 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. RDVY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. RDVY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor RDVY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. RDVY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QDF vs RDVY: 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 | QDF | RDVY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.4% | 0.47% | QDF |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 144 | 72 | QDF |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.5% | 0.85% | QDF |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -22.1% | -25.3% | QDF |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.9% | 14.3% | QDF |
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 QDF and RDVY 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.
- Quality40 vs 61RDVY +21
- Value46 vs 58RDVY +12
- Momentum57 vs 60Even
- Risk Resilience87 vs 85Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor RDVY. RDVY’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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 +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
RDVY's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QDF and RDVY 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 | QDF | RDVY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.47% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 144 | 72 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 24,427 | 1,098,784 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 14.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -9.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | 1.10 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.94 | 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.
QDF vs RDVY: five-year payout growth
RDVY grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 4.79% a year against QDF's 2.46%. QDF: The 2020 payout was 20.3% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year. RDVY: The payout jumped 80.0% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | QDF | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 2.46% | 4.79% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.178 | $0.612 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.330 | $0.773 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 3 |
| Peer rank | #26 of 33 | #18 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 RDVY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RDVY | 53 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | RDVY | Value 46 vs 58 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.1% vs -0.9%; vs 200-day 4.9% vs 4.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 87 vs 85 |
| 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 QDF and RDVY 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 moderate at 10 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 RDVY.
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20RDVY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RDVY +10
- 53 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- RDVY +9
- 52 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- RDVY +7
- 50 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- RDVY +10
- 55 vs 65
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QDF
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only RDVY
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
QDF 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 +0.31%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.31%, 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.
- 1QDF closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to RDVY's edge.
- 2QDF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3RDVY'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
RDVY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | QDF | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | 0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.5% | -0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8% | 6.9% |
| Year to date | 12.8% | 14.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.5% | 21.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | QDF | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.2 | 63.1 |
| ADX (14) | 7.4 | 15.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.1% | -0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.9% | 4.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 7.9% | 9.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | QDF | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | 1.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.51 | 1.92 |
| Max drawdown | -8.1% | -9.3% |
| Current drawdown | -2.5% | -5.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 14.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, QDF or RDVY?
QDF holds more positions: 144 versus 72 for RDVY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QDF has the lower expense ratio, 0.4% a year against 0.47% for RDVY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QDF, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 1.5% against 0.85% for RDVY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
RDVY has been more volatile over the past year, at 14.3% annualized against 11.9% for QDF.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QDF fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -22.1% against -25.3% for RDVY.
Compare QDF and RDVY 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.