TDIV vs VYM: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
TDIV and VYM are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. TDIV is First Trust NASDAQ Technology Dividend Index Fund, while VYM is Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF. VYM is broader by holdings count, with 613 positions versus 95 for TDIV. TDIV is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has VYM ahead on AIQ Score, 64 versus 51.
What is the main difference between TDIV and VYM?
TDIV puts 84% of its assets in Technology, while VYM spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
| Metric | TDIV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 0.04% |
| Holdings | 95 | 613 |
| Top-10 concentration | 50.6% | 26.2% |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.4% | 2.28% |
| Average volume | 162,186 | 1,227,061 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +13.3% | +15.5% |
| YTD return | +17% | +12.3% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +16.6% | +11.3% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 20.6% | 10.1% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.6% | -7.2% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -32% | -15.9% |
| Beta | 1.35 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.83 | 1.71 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 51/100 | 64/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 4/10 | 9/10 |
| Momentum | 49/100 | 67/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 66/100 | 80/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
First Trust NASDAQ Technology Dividend Index Fund vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
VYM leads
VYM leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VYM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Trust NASDAQ Technology Dividend Index Fund
Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VYM over TDIV, 64 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. VYM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. VYM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VYM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VYM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 13 points over 30 sessions. VYM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare First Trust NASDAQ Technology Dividend Index Fund and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
TDIV vs VYM: 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 | TDIV | VYM | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.5% | 0.04% | VYM |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 95 | 613 | VYM |
| Lower concentrationWeight of the 10 largest holdings | 50.6% | 26.2% | VYM |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.4% | 2.28% | VYM |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -32% | -15.9% | VYM |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 20.6% | 10.1% | VYM |
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 TDIV and VYM 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.
- Momentum49 vs 67VYM +18
- Quality49 vs 65VYM +16
- Risk Resilience66 vs 80VYM +14
- Value48 vs 52VYM +4
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VYM. VYM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 +4, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VYM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TDIV and VYM 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 | TDIV | VYM | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.5% | 0.04% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 95 | 613 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 162,186 | 1,227,061 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 20.6% | 10.1% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -16.6% | -7.2% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 1.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 1.35 | 0.56 | 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
TDIV and VYM share 17.23% of their weighted exposure across 39 common holdings.
54 holdings are unique to TDIV, and 565 holdings are unique to VYM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
TDIV is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 50.56% of the fund, against 26.16% for VYM (95 holdings vs 613). 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 | TDIV | VYM | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 6.75% | 7.36% | 6.75% |
| CSCOCisco Systems, Inc. | 1.99% | 1.86% | 1.86% |
| TXNTexas Instruments Incorporated | 6.19% | 1.02% | 1.02% |
| ORCLOracle Corporation | 5.56% | 0.9% | 0.9% |
| IBMInternational Business Machines Corporation | 6.93% | 0.85% | 0.85% |
| VZVerizon Communications Inc. | 2.19% | 0.8% | 0.8% |
| ADIAnalog Devices, Inc. | 2.66% | 0.73% | 0.73% |
| TAT&T Inc. | 2.22% | 0.64% | 0.64% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
What TDIV adds that VYM doesn’t
| Holding | TDIV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corporation | 9.6% | Not held |
| IBMInternational Business Machines Corporation | 6.93% | 0.85% |
| TXNTexas Instruments Incorporated | 6.19% | 1.02% |
| ORCLOracle Corporation | 5.56% | 0.9% |
| TSMTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (ADR) | 4.46% | Not held |
| QCOMQUALCOMM Incorporated | 3.26% | 0.63% |
What VYM adds that TDIV doesn’t
| Holding | VYM | TDIV |
|---|---|---|
| JPMJPMorgan Chase & Co | 3.82% | Not held |
| XOMExxonMobil Holdings Corp | 2.63% | Not held |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 2.51% | Not held |
| ABBVAbbVie Inc | 1.8% | Not held |
| BACBank of America Corp | 1.67% | Not held |
| UNHUnitedHealth Group Inc | 1.52% | 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.
TDIV vs VYM: five-year payout growth
TDIV grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.79% a year against VYM's 3.79%. VYM never reduced its annual distribution in the window; TDIV did in 1 year.
| Dividend metric | TDIV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 5.79% | 3.79% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.027 | $2.906 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.361 | $3.501 |
| Calendar-year declines | 1 | 0 |
| Peer rank | #14 of 33 | #21 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 VYM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VYM | 51 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VYM | Value 48 vs 52 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.3% vs 0%; vs 200-day 4.9% vs 2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | VYM | Risk Resilience 66 vs 80 |
| 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 TDIV and VYM 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 13 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 VYM.
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20VYM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VYM +13
- 51 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- VYM +10
- 51 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- VYM +5
- 49 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- VYM +9
- 56 vs 65
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when VYM moved ahead of TDIV.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TDIV
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only VYM
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.80%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active.
VYM 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 +0.98%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.19%, 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.
- 1TDIV closes the Momentum gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to VYM's edge.
- 2TDIV's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3VYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
Split across windows| Metric | TDIV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.9% | 1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.8% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.3% | 4.4% |
| Year to date | 17% | 12.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.3% | 15.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | TDIV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.4 | 80.5 |
| ADX (14) | 10.8 | 24.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.3% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.9% | 2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.1% | 8.7% |
Risk
VYM is the more resilient| Metric | TDIV | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.35 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.83 | 1.71 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -7.2% |
| Current drawdown | -11.7% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.6% | 10.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
What is the difference between TDIV and VYM?
TDIV puts 84% of its assets in Technology, while VYM spreads across 11 sectors with none above 21%.
How much do TDIV and VYM overlap?
TDIV and VYM share 17.23% of their weighted exposure across 39 common holdings. 54 holdings are unique to TDIV, and 565 holdings are unique to VYM. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Which ETF is more diversified, TDIV or VYM?
VYM holds more positions: 613 versus 95 for TDIV.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VYM has the lower expense ratio, 0.04% a year against 0.5% for TDIV.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
VYM, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.28% against 1.4% for TDIV.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
TDIV has been more volatile over the past year, at 20.6% annualized against 10.1% for VYM.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
VYM fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -15.9% against -32% for TDIV.
Compare TDIV and VYM 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.