Generated August 15, 2026.
Figures quoted in this analysis are from its generation date and may lag the live snapshot table above, which always shows the latest data.
Overview
Both FDVV and VYM are dividend-focused ETFs tracking high-yield equity indexes, but they differ in index construction and yield philosophy. FDVV targets the Fidelity High Dividend Index, screening for large- and mid-cap companies with a track record of paying and growing dividends, while VYM follows the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index, targeting large-cap value stocks with above-average dividend histories. The result is a meaningful gap in current yield: FDVV pays 3.23% versus VYM's 2.35%, reflecting different weightings and sector exposures within the high-dividend universe.
How they differ
FDVV's higher distribution rate stems from a more aggressive tilt toward companies prioritizing current yield, whereas VYM blends dividend yield with value-stock characteristics, moderating its payout. FDVV's underlying index includes mid-caps and weighs recent dividend growth more heavily, while VYM's FTSE index focuses on large-cap dividend payers with a stronger value bias. VYM's expense ratio is half FDVV's—0.06% versus 0.15%—and VYM is substantially larger at $83.4B in AUM compared to FDVV's $10.4B. FDVV carries a beta of 0.78, slightly below VYM's 0.68, suggesting a touch more volatility, though both are less volatile than the broader market.
Who each is best for
FDVV: Fits investors prioritizing current dividend income who are comfortable with mid-cap exposure and can tolerate a higher yield in exchange for accepting greater price sensitivity and a steeper expense ratio.
VYM: Designed for investors seeking a large-cap dividend portfolio with minimal cost, valuing lower fees and exposure to established blue-chip payers over maximum current yield, and favoring a longer track record (since 2006).
Key risks to know
- Yield sustainability at FDVV's 3.23% level. A distribution rate this far above VYM's suggests either faster dividend growth assumptions or a higher proportion of income from cyclical sectors and lower-quality payers. If growth stalls or economic conditions weaken, distributions may prove difficult to sustain without NAV erosion.
- Mid-cap and small-cap concentration in FDVV's index. Unlike VYM's strictly large-cap approach, FDVV includes mid-caps, which typically carry wider bid-ask spreads and lower liquidity. During stress periods, this could amplify drawdowns.
- Value-stock cyclicality in both funds. Both indexes tilt toward value characteristics, making them more sensitive to growth-stock rotations. Extended periods of technology and growth dominance can underperform the broader market.
- Sector concentration risk. Dividend-heavy indexes typically overweight financials, utilities, and energy. If those sectors underperform or face regulatory headwinds, both funds' returns may lag the market.
Bottom line
If you prioritize current income and are comfortable with a higher expense ratio and mid-cap exposure, FDVV's 3.23% yield offers meaningfully more cash flow. If you value low costs and large-cap stability with a 17-year track record, VYM's 0.06% expense ratio and $83.4B scale provide efficiency at the cost of 88 basis points less yield. Both carry value-stock cyclicality risk, and past dividend patterns don't guarantee future distributions.
AI-generated analysis for educational purposes only. Verify important details independently; past performance does not guarantee future results.
