QDVO vs RDVY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QDVO and RDVY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QDVO is Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF, while RDVY is First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF. RDVY is broader by holdings count, with 72 positions versus 49 for QDVO. QDVO is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has RDVY ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 47.
What is the main difference between QDVO and RDVY?
QDVO and RDVY have little in common: 20% of their weight is in the same securities.
| Metric | QDVO | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.56% | 0.47% |
| Holdings | 49 | 72 |
| Top-10 concentration | 56.3% | 24.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 10.69% | 0.85% |
| Average volume | 238,966 | 1,098,784 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +1.4% | +21.1% |
| YTD return | +1.5% | +14.6% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 13.7% | 14.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.8% | -9.3% |
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 1.10 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.22 | 1.92 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 47/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 3/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 41/100 | 60/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 83/100 | 85/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF vs First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
RDVY leads
RDVY leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 3 of 4 evidence groups support RDVY, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RDVY over QDVO, 63 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. RDVY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. RDVY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor RDVY today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. RDVY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QDVO 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 | QDVO | RDVY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.56% | 0.47% | RDVY |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 49 | 72 | RDVY |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 56.3% | 24.1% | RDVY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 10.69% | 0.85% | QDVO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -14.8% | -9.3% | RDVY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 13.7% | 14.3% | 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 QDVO 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.
- Value37 vs 58RDVY +21
- Momentum41 vs 60RDVY +19
- Quality45 vs 61RDVY +16
- Risk Resilience83 vs 85Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor RDVY. RDVY’s edge is concentrated in value 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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 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 widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QDVO 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 | QDVO | RDVY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.56% | 0.47% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 49 | 72 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 238,966 | 1,098,784 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 13.7% | 14.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -14.8% | -9.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 1.10 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.96 | 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.
How much of the same holdings they own
QDVO and RDVY share 20.16% of their weighted exposure across 13 common holdings.
35 holdings are unique to QDVO, and 58 holdings are unique to RDVY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QDVO is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 56.29% of the fund, against 24.12% for RDVY (49 holdings vs 72). 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 | QDVO | RDVY | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 10.19% | 2.12% | 2.12% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 8.13% | 2.01% | 2.01% |
| VVisa Inc | 2.33% | 1.98% | 1.98% |
| ALLThe Allstate Corporation | 1.95% | 2.16% | 1.95% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.78% | 1.94% | 1.94% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.52% | 1.74% | 1.74% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 9.04% | 1.65% | 1.65% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.01% | 1.57% | 1.57% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What QDVO adds that RDVY doesn’t
| Holding | QDVO | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 10.19% | 2.12% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 9.04% | 1.65% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 8.13% | 2.01% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.78% | 1.94% |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 5.25% | Not held |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.01% | 1.57% |
What RDVY adds that QDVO doesn’t
| Holding | RDVY | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| LRCXLam Research Corporation | 3.09% | 1.44% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 2.99% | 1.09% |
| KLACKLA Corporation | 2.47% | 0.37% |
| BNYThe Bank of New York Mellon Corporation | 2.46% | Not held |
| TRVThe Travelers Companies, Inc. | 2.26% | Not held |
| GEVGE Vernova Inc. | 2.24% | 0.79% |
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.
QDVO vs RDVY: five-year payout growth
RDVY grew its split-adjusted payout at 4.79% a year over 2020-2025. QDVO began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. RDVY: The payout jumped 80.0% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | QDVO | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $2.878 | $0.773 |
| Peer rank | not ranked | #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
3 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 | 47 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | RDVY | Value 37 vs 58 |
| Technicals | RDVY | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs -0.9%; vs 200-day 0.8% vs 4.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 83 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 QDVO and RDVY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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
45 daily snapshots · Sep 6 – Oct 20RDVY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RDVY +16
- 47 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- RDVY +15
- 46 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- RDVY +4
- 53 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QDVO
- 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.
QDVO 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1QDVO closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to RDVY's edge.
- 2QDVO'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 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QDVO | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.8% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | 0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.9% | -0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.8% | 6.9% |
| Year to date | 1.5% | 14.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.4% | 21.1% |
Technicals
RDVY has the stronger structure| Metric | QDVO | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.9 | 63.1 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 15.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | -0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.8% | 4.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12% | 9.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | QDVO | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 1.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.22 | 1.92 |
| Max drawdown | -14.8% | -9.3% |
| Current drawdown | -4.8% | -5.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 13.7% | 14.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QDVO and RDVY?
QDVO and RDVY have little in common: 20% of their weight is in the same securities.
How much do QDVO and RDVY overlap?
QDVO and RDVY share 20.16% of their weighted exposure across 13 common holdings. 35 holdings are unique to QDVO, and 58 holdings are unique to RDVY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QDVO or RDVY?
RDVY holds more positions: 72 versus 49 for QDVO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
RDVY has the lower expense ratio, 0.47% a year against 0.56% for QDVO.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QDVO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 10.69% against 0.85% for RDVY.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 13.7% annualized for QDVO and 14.3% for RDVY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
RDVY fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -9.3% against -14.8% for QDVO.
Compare QDVO 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.