VYM vs FDVV: Vanguard vs Fidelity Showdown

Vanguard High Dividend Yield vs Fidelity High Dividend Value. Which offers better yield, lower costs, and superior total returns for dividend investors?

VYM

VYM

Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF

3.18%
Dividend Yield
0.06%
Expense Ratio
9.8%
5-Year Return
448
Holdings

VYM tracks the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index, selecting U.S. companies with higher-than-average dividend yields. Market-cap weighted with broad diversification across all market caps. Focuses purely on current yield without dividend growth requirements.

High Yield Ultra-Low Cost Broad Diversification Market-Cap Weighted Current Income Focus
FDVV

FDVV

Fidelity High Dividend Value ETF

3.65%
Dividend Yield
0.29%
Expense Ratio
8.9%
5-Year Return
102
Holdings

FDVV tracks the Fidelity High Dividend Value Index, selecting U.S. companies with sustainable dividend yields and value characteristics. Multi-factor approach combining yield, value, and quality metrics. Concentrated portfolio focused on dividend sustainability.

High Yield Value Focus Quality Screening Sustainable Dividends Multi-Factor

Key Metrics Comparison

Metric VYM FDVV Winner
Dividend Yield 3.18% 3.65% FDVV (+0.47%)
Expense Ratio 0.06% 0.29% VYM (-0.23%)
5-Year Annual Return 9.8% 8.9% VYM (+0.9%)
Number of Holdings 448 102 VYM (4.4x more)
Assets Under Management $58.3B $2.1B VYM
5-Year Dividend Growth 5.8% 4.3% VYM (+1.5%)
P/E Ratio 16.5 14.8 FDVV (cheaper)
Beta vs S&P 500 0.90 0.88 FDVV (lower risk)

Performance Comparison

VYM Performance

Higher total returns with slightly lower yield. Broader diversification (448 holdings) reduces concentration risk. Better dividend growth provides inflation protection. Lower expense ratio (0.06%) enhances net returns. More mid/small-cap exposure for growth.

9.8%
5-Year Return
3.18%
Yield
0.90
Beta
448
Holdings

FDVV Performance

Higher current income with slightly lower total returns. Quality screening for sustainable dividends. Lower beta offers better downside protection. Value-focused approach during market downturns. Multi-factor methodology combines yield and value.

8.9%
5-Year Return
3.65%
Yield
0.88
Beta
102
Holdings

Strategy Analysis

VYM Approach

Broad high yield diversification:

  • Tracks FTSE High Dividend Yield Index
  • Selects companies with above-average yields
  • Market-cap weighted methodology
  • Includes all market caps (large, mid, small)
  • 448 holdings for broad diversification
  • No minimum dividend growth requirements
  • Lower turnover strategy
  • Pure yield focus across entire market

FDVV Approach

Quality high yield with value tilt:

  • Tracks Fidelity High Dividend Value Index
  • Multi-factor approach (yield + value + quality)
  • Screens for sustainable dividends
  • Value-focused stock selection
  • Concentrated portfolio (102 holdings)
  • Quarterly rebalancing
  • Quality metrics for dividend safety
  • Lower volatility strategy

Index Methodology Differences

VYM's pure yield focus vs FDVV's multi-factor approach creates fundamentally different portfolio constructions.

Primary Focus

Yield vs Multi-Factor
VYM vs FDVV

Portfolio Size

448 vs 102
VYM vs FDVV Holdings

Weighting Method

Market vs Multi-Factor
VYM vs FDVV

Quality Screening

None vs Strong
VYM vs FDVV

Sector Allocation Comparison

Sector Weighting Differences

FDVV's value focus creates different sector exposures compared to VYM's pure yield approach.

Financials Exposure

22% vs 28%
VYM vs FDVV

Healthcare

15% vs 8%
VYM vs FDVV

Energy

8% vs 12%
VYM vs FDVV

Technology

12% vs 6%
VYM vs FDVV

Yield Characteristics & Sustainability

FDVV's higher yield comes from value concentration, while VYM's broader approach provides more sustainable yield growth.

Yield Composition

FDVV yield sources: Financials, Energy, Utilities

VYM yield sources: Financials, Healthcare, Staples

Yield volatility: FDVV slightly lower

Dividend growth: VYM significantly better

Dividend Sustainability

Average Payout Ratio: VYM 62% vs FDVV 58%

Dividend Coverage: VYM 1.6x vs FDVV 1.7x

Cut Risk: Both low, FDVV slightly lower

Financial Health: FDVV companies stronger

Quality Metrics

ROE: VYM 18% vs FDVV 22%

Debt/Equity: VYM 1.2x vs FDVV 0.9x

Profit Margin: VYM 12% vs FDVV 15%

Quality Score: FDVV higher

Income Analysis

VYM Income Profile

Moderate current yield with better growth. Broader diversification provides income stability. Financials and healthcare heavy for defensive income. Lower expense ratio maximizes net income. Better inflation protection through growth.

Current Yield 3.18%
5-Year Dividend Growth 5.8%
Expense Ratio 0.06%
Income Growth Strong

FDVV Income Profile

Higher current income with moderate growth. Quality screening for dividend safety. Value-focused during market downturns. Lower beta provides stable income. Multi-factor approach balances yield and quality.

Current Yield 3.65%
5-Year Dividend Growth 4.3%
Expense Ratio 0.29%
Dividend Safety High

Historical Performance & Backtesting

Long-Term Performance Comparison

VYM has outperformed FDVV over longer periods despite lower yield, thanks to better diversification and lower costs.

Since 2016 (FDVV inception)

9.6% vs 8.8%
VYM vs FDVV Annualized

Maximum Drawdown (2020)

-36% vs -34%
VYM vs FDVV

Sharpe Ratio

0.62 vs 0.58
VYM vs FDVV

Dividend Growth

5.8% vs 4.3%
VYM vs FDVV CAGR

Top Holdings Comparison

VYM Top Holdings (Market-Cap Weighted)

JPMorgan Chase (Financials) 3.2%
Johnson & Johnson (Healthcare) 2.8%
Exxon Mobil (Energy) 2.5%
Procter & Gamble (Staples) 2.3%
Bank of America (Financials) 2.1%

Note: Market-cap weighted, 448 holdings, financials/healthcare heavy

FDVV Top Holdings (Multi-Factor Weighted)

Verizon Comm (Communications) 4.1%
JPMorgan Chase (Financials) 3.8%
Exxon Mobil (Energy) 3.5%
Wells Fargo (Financials) 3.2%
Chevron Corp (Energy) 3.0%

Note: Multi-factor weighted, 102 holdings, financials/energy heavy

Investment Recommendation

🏦 Choose VYM If:

  • Better total returns are priority (9.8% vs 8.9%)
  • Ultra-low costs matter (0.06% vs 0.29%)
  • Broader diversification is important (448 vs 102)
  • Dividend growth is key (5.8% vs 4.3%)
  • You want all market cap exposure
  • Lower turnover appeals to you
  • You prefer passive index approach
  • Inflation protection through growth matters

💰 Choose FDVV If:

  • Higher current income is priority (3.65% vs 3.18%)
  • Dividend sustainability matters most
  • Value investing appeals to you
  • Lower beta for downside protection (0.88 vs 0.90)
  • Quality screening is important
  • You prefer multi-factor approach
  • Concentrated value portfolio preferred
  • Dividend safety over maximum growth

💡 Portfolio Construction Strategy

For cost-conscious investors: VYM provides better long-term value due to 0.23% expense ratio advantage. For income-focused investors: FDVV's 0.47% yield advantage equals VYM's performance gap over ~2 years if markets are flat. For balanced approach: 60% VYM + 40% FDVV provides ~3.37% blended yield with better growth than FDVV alone and lower costs than 100% FDVV. Consider combining with SCHD: 50% SCHD + 30% VYM + 20% FDVV provides balanced yield/growth/quality. Important: FDVV's higher expense ratio (0.29%) vs VYM (0.06%) reduces net returns by ~0.23% annually. During value outperformance cycles, FDVV may shine. During growth periods, VYM likely outperforms. FDVV's quality screening provides better protection during recessions.

Back to All ETF compare

Which should you choose: VYM vs FDVV?

VYM
Choose VYM if you want a higher current yield than SCHD from a very broad basket of large-cap U.S. payers.
FDVV
Choose FDVV if you want an above-average yield with some quality and growth screening from Fidelity at a low fee.
Bottom line: Both VYM and FDVV are high-yield income funds, so the decision comes down to the finer details — expense ratio, exact holdings, yield and dividend-growth rate. Compare the figures in the table above and pick the one whose costs and composition fit your plan.