QQQ vs RDVY: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QQQ and RDVY are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QQQ is Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1, while RDVY is First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF. QQQ is broader by holdings count, with 107 positions versus 72 for RDVY. QQQ is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has RDVY ahead on AIQ Score, 63 versus 51.
What is the main difference between QQQ and RDVY?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while RDVY spreads across 9 sectors with none above 38%.
| Metric | QQQ | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.18% | 0.47% |
| Holdings | 107 | 72 |
| Top-10 concentration | 47% | 24.1% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 0.43% | 0.85% |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 1,098,784 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +19.6% | +21.1% |
| YTD return | +16.8% | +14.6% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +14.4% | +11.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 14.3% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -9.3% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -35.1% | -25.3% |
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 1.10 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.20 | 1.92 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 63/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 21/100 | 60/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 85/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 vs First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
RDVY leads
RDVY leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QQQ.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support RDVY, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RDVY over QQQ, 63 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. RDVY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QQQ holds the stronger quality profile. 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 Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. RDVY lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; RDVY now leads by 12.
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.
QQQ 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 | QQQ | RDVY | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.18% | 0.47% | QQQ |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 107 | 72 | QQQ |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 47% | 24.1% | RDVY |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 0.43% | 0.85% | RDVY |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -35.1% | -25.3% | RDVY |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 19.9% | 14.3% | RDVY |
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 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.
- Momentum21 vs 60RDVY +39
- Value35 vs 58RDVY +23
- Quality82 vs 61QQQ +21
- Risk Resilience72 vs 85RDVY +13
3 of 4 evidence groups favor RDVY. RDVY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QQQ 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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 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 — QQQ and RDVY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RDVY (First Trust Rising Dividend Achievers ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QQQ (Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 15.4% against 9.6%.
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. |
| Holdings | 107 | 72 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 37,968,274 | 1,098,784 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 14.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -12.2% | -9.3% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 1.10 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.45 | 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
QQQ and RDVY share 20.21% of their weighted exposure across 19 common holdings.
83 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 52 holdings are unique to RDVY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
QQQ is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.96% of the fund, against 24.12% for RDVY (107 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 | QQQ | RDVY | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.49% | 2.12% | 2.12% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.11% | 2.01% | 2.01% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.88% | 1.94% | 1.94% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.07% | 1.74% | 1.74% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp | 1.78% | 1.69% | 1.69% |
| LRCXLam Research Corporation | 1.65% | 3.09% | 1.65% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.71% | 1.65% | 1.65% |
| AMATApplied Materials, Inc. | 1.6% | 2.99% | 1.6% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What QQQ adds that RDVY doesn’t
| Holding | QQQ | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| NVDANVIDIA Corp | 8.49% | 2.12% |
| AAPLApple Inc | 7.71% | 1.65% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.88% | 1.94% |
| MUMicron Technology Inc | 4.89% | 1.57% |
| AMZNAmazon.com Inc | 4.36% | Not held |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 3.64% | Not held |
What RDVY adds that QQQ doesn’t
| Holding | RDVY | QQQ |
|---|---|---|
| KLACKLA Corporation | 2.47% | 1.03% |
| BNYThe Bank of New York Mellon Corporation | 2.46% | Not held |
| TRVThe Travelers Companies, Inc. | 2.26% | Not held |
| GEVGE Vernova Inc. | 2.24% | Not held |
| BACBank of America Corporation | 2.18% | Not held |
| ROSTRoss Stores, Inc. | 2.16% | 0.32% |
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.
QQQ vs RDVY: five-year payout growth
QQQ grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 9.99% a year against RDVY's 4.79%. RDVY: The payout jumped 80.0% in 2022, a single step rather than steady compounding - often an index or mandate change.
| Dividend metric | QQQ | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 9.99% | 4.79% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.737 | $0.612 |
| 2025 annual payout | $2.795 | $0.773 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 3 |
| Peer rank | #56 of 138 | #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 | 51 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | RDVY | Value 35 vs 58 |
| Technicals | QQQ | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs -0.9%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs 4.6% |
| Risk Resilience | RDVY | Risk Resilience 72 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 QQQ 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20RDVY lead: Reversed — QQQ led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; RDVY now leads by 12.
- Today
- RDVY +12
- 51 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- RDVY +4
- 57 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- QQQ +8
- 65 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- QQQ +2
- 67 vs 65
The lead changed hands once 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only QQQ
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only RDVY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.98%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
QQQ 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.
- 1QQQ closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to RDVY's edge.
- 2QQQ's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 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
Split across windows| Metric | QQQ | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | 0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.7% | -0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | 6.9% |
| Year to date | 16.8% | 14.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.6% | 21.1% |
Technicals
QQQ has the stronger structure| Metric | QQQ | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 63.1 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 15.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | -0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | 4.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.4% | 9.6% |
Risk
RDVY is the more resilient| Metric | QQQ | RDVY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.45 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 1.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | 1.92 |
| Max drawdown | -12.2% | -9.3% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -5.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 14.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between QQQ and RDVY?
QQQ puts 59% of its assets in Technology, while RDVY spreads across 9 sectors with none above 38%.
How much do QQQ and RDVY overlap?
QQQ and RDVY share 20.21% of their weighted exposure across 19 common holdings. 83 holdings are unique to QQQ, and 52 holdings are unique to RDVY. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, QQQ or RDVY?
QQQ holds more positions: 107 versus 72 for RDVY.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QQQ has the lower expense ratio, 0.18% a year against 0.47% for RDVY.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
RDVY, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 0.85% against 0.43% for QQQ.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QQQ has been more volatile over the past year, at 19.9% annualized against 14.3% for RDVY.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
RDVY fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -25.3% against -35.1% for QQQ.
Compare QQQ 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.