QQQ vs RDVY ETF Comparison
Compare QQQ and RDVY across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between QQQ and RDVY?
QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while RDVY is First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF. QQQ is tied to Equity; RDVY is tied to Equity Income. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 102 positions versus 71 for RDVY. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | QQQ | RDVY | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.47% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $485.9B | $25.7B | Fund |
| Holdings | 102 | 71 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 152.9% | 93.1% | Fund |
| Average volume | 48,821,168 | 708,890 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | Equity Income | Fund |
| 1Y return | +26.1% | +25.4% | Performance |
| YTD return | +17% | +18.1% | Performance |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 14.5% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -9.3% | Risk |
| Beta | 1.43 | 0.96 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 1.28 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 2.08 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 59/100 | 59/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 7/10 | 7/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 54/100 | 52/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 75/100 | 86/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
QQQ and RDVY are effectively level
QQQ and RDVY are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate QQQ and RDVY as of Sep 6, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 and First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison for both ETFs using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare QQQ 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.
- Quality30%83 vs 61QQQ +22
- Value30%30 vs 51RDVY +21
- Risk Resilience15%75 vs 86RDVY +11
- Momentum25%54 vs 52Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QQQ and RDVY both carry a full feed there.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
RDVYRDVY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
RDVYRDVY on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
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 | QQQ | RDVY | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.47% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $485.9B | $25.7B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 103 | 51 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 48,821,168 | 708,890 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 14.5% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -9.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 1.28 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.43 | 0.96 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
QQQ and RDVY share 62.61% of their weighted exposure across 19 common holdings.
QQQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 152.9% of the fund, against 93.12% for RDVY (102 holdings vs 71). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
83 holdings are unique to QQQ and 52 to RDVY. Owning both is a partial overlap: a majority of the capital is distinct, but the largest positions are shared.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | QQQ | RDVY | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 23.53% | 7.84% | 7.84% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 6.73% | 11.8% | 6.73% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 29.78% | 6.46% | 6.46% |
| AMATApplied Materials Inc | 6.32% | 11.17% | 6.32% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 20.06% | 6% | 6% |
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 17.67% | 4.32% | 4.32% |
| KLACKLA Corp | 4.24% | 9.38% | 4.24% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 6.25% | 4.02% | 4.02% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or RDVY?
QQQ currently has more reported holdings, with 102 positions versus 71.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQ has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
RDVY has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
The current AlgovestIQ evidence does not show a clear leader.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 59 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | RDVY | Value 30 vs 51 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs 0.8%; vs 200-day 9.3% vs 10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | RDVY | Risk Resilience 75 vs 86 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5QQQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- QQQ +2
- 60 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +1
- 67 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- RDVY +8
- 56 vs 64
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when QQQ moved ahead of RDVY.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.12%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.21%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
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 +0.18%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.09%, AIQ 0 points).
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
QQQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | QQQ | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2% | 8.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.9% | 17.5% |
| Year to date | 17% | 18.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.1% | 25.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | QQQ | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.1 | 39.3 |
| ADX (14) | 10.9 | 15.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | 0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.3% | 10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.9% | 9.3% |
Risk
RDVY is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.43 | 0.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.04 | 1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.55 | 2.08 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -9.3% |
| Current drawdown | -3.6% | -2.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.7% | 14.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better value, QQQ or RDVY?
RDVY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RDVY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, QQQ or RDVY?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, QQQ or RDVY?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, QQQ or RDVY?
RDVY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RDVY on Risk Resilience, by 11 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is QQQ more profitable than RDVY?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
What do the current signals say about QQQ and RDVY?
QQQ: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RDVY: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on QQQ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RDVY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare QQQ and RDVY with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.