By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel's net takeaway is that FDVV's high tech concentration (26.7%, with top-four techs at 20.5%) and underperformance versus S&P 500 (13.3% annualized since 2016) are significant concerns, despite its attractive yield (2.8%) and low expense ratio (0.15%). The fund's 'quality' screen sensitivity and potential payout ratio risks (NVDA, AVGO at 40%+) are additional red flags.
Risk: High tech concentration and potential payout ratio risks
Opportunity: Attractive yield and low expense ratio
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
The Fidelity High Dividend ETF has underperformed the S&P 500 for almost 10 years since its inception.
This dividend fund is oddly top-heavy with tech stocks, with four tech names making up 20.5% of its holdings.
Investing in dividend stocks can be a good plan for people who want to earn steady income from their stock holdings. High-yield dividends often come from well-established, consistently profitable companies. If you want to avoid volatile growth stocks or put your money into parts of the market that might be less exposed to a possible downturn in tech stocks, buying high-yield dividend stocks can be a good strategy.
The Fidelity High Dividend ETF (NYSEMKT: FDVV) is a dividend stock ETF that invests in large- and mid-cap stocks of companies that are expected to continue to pay and grow their dividends.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Here are a few key details about the Fidelity High Dividend ETF.
The Fidelity High Dividend ETF has 112 holdings, making it less diversified than many other ETFs. The fund's dividend yield is 2.8%, and it charges an expense ratio of 0.15%.
Like many dividend ETFs, this fund offers decent sector diversification. Its holdings include 26.7% information technology stocks, 18.9% financials, 14.5% consumer discretionary, 11.3% consumer staples, and 9.2% utilities.
But the top four holdings (as of April 30) are all major tech names: Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, and Broadcom. These four tech stocks make up about 20.5% of the fund. If you're looking to diversify away from tech stocks, this dividend fund might not be the best choice.
The Fidelity High Dividend ETF was launched in September 2016. During that almost 10-year track record, it has delivered average annual returns (by net asset value) of 13.3%. That might sound like a solid return on investment.
Unfortunately, the S&P 500 index has done even better. If you had invested $10,000 in FDVV on its inception date, today you'd have about $23,540. But if you had invested $10,000 in an S&P 500 index fund instead, today you'd have about $33,790 -- a 44% higher return.
This fund has also underperformed the S&P 500 year to date and for the past five years. Past performance doesn't guarantee future results, and this fund might rally and outperform the market in the years to come. But a dividend-focused fund that is top-heavy with tech stocks seems like an odd choice for most investors. This fund doesn't rank among the best dividend ETFs.
What should you buy instead? If you want lots of tech stocks, buying a Nasdaq-100 ETF could be a better strategy. If you want more value-oriented stocks that pay high dividends, other dividend ETFs could be a better fit. Or if you want more diversification, choosing a low-cost total stock market index fund might help you avoid the risks of investing too heavily in any one industry or type of stock.
Before you buy stock in Fidelity Covington Trust - Fidelity High Dividend ETF, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Fidelity Covington Trust - Fidelity High Dividend ETF wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $471,827! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,319,291!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 986% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 207% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 10, 2026. *
Ben Gran has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Apple, Broadcom, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Criticizing FDVV for tech concentration ignores that high-quality dividend growth is now structurally tied to the balance sheets of the same tech giants leading the broader market."
The article frames FDVV as a failure for underperforming the S&P 500, but this is a category error. FDVV is a total-return, dividend-growth vehicle, not a pure-play income fund or a growth index proxy. Its 26.7% tech exposure isn't a bug; it's a feature reflecting the reality that modern dividend growth is increasingly concentrated in 'Big Tech' cash-flow machines. Investors buying dividend ETFs expecting 1980s-style utility and energy weightings are looking for a market that no longer exists. The 0.15% expense ratio is competitive, and the fund provides a defensive tilt for those who want exposure to quality compounders without the volatility of pure growth ETFs.
If the fund's primary value proposition is dividend growth, its failure to beat the S&P 500—which has been driven by the exact same tech names—suggests the fund's dividend-screening criteria are acting as a drag on performance rather than a value-add.
"FDVV smartly fuses high-quality tech dividend growth with 2.8% yield, outperforming pure value dividend funds in an AI-driven market."
The article dismisses FDVV as an 'odd' dividend ETF due to its 20.5% top-four tech concentration (NVDA, AAPL, MSFT, AVGO) and 13.3% annualized underperformance vs S&P 500's ~16% since 2016 inception, but overlooks these are premium dividend growers—NVDA's payout tripled since 2021 amid AI boom. At 2.8% yield (vs S&P's 1.3%) and 0.15% expense ratio, FDVV delivers income plus growth for conservative investors wary of zero-yield hypergrowth. 112 holdings and sector mix (26.7% tech, 18.9% financials) balance risks; underperformance reflects dividend screen missing non-payers like TSLA, not structural flaws. In prolonged tech leadership, it could close the gap.
If tech falters amid valuation reset or rate hikes, FDVV's heavy tech tilt risks amplified drawdowns versus truly diversified dividend ETFs like SCHD; a decade of lagging S&P shows it underdelivers total returns for growth-oriented investors.
"FDVV conflates dividend income with growth capture, leaving investors with neither reliable yield nor tech upside—a structurally confused fund, not a cyclical underperformer."
FDVV's 10-year underperformance versus SPX (44% gap on $10k) is real, but the article conflates two separate problems: (1) dividend strategies underperforming growth-heavy markets in a tech bull run, and (2) this fund's specific construction flaw. The real issue: FDVV holds 26.7% tech while claiming to be a dividend fund, yet tech mega-caps (NVDA, MSFT, AAPL) have crushed traditional dividend payers. This isn't a dividend strategy problem—it's a confused mandate. A pure value-dividend ETF (VYM, SCHD) would have underperformed less because it wouldn't chase tech yield. The 2.8% yield masks concentration risk.
If tech dividend payers continue dominating returns (as they have since 2016), FDVV's 'tech-heavy' composition becomes a feature, not a bug—and the article's criticism becomes a rear-view mirror complaint about missing the winners.
"FDVV's concentration in tech megacaps and fragile dividend-growth profile make it an inferior, higher-risk income vehicle relative to broad-market or value dividend alternatives."
FDVV's 2.8% yield and 0.15% expense ratio look attractive only at first glance. The fund is 26.7% IT, with four megacaps—Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Broadcom—making up about 20.5% of assets, which undermines the notion of a broad, defensive high-dividend sleeve. Since its 2016 inception, it has underperformed the S&P 500 on a total-return basis, and a 112-holding, tech-skewed portfolio is vulnerable to AI-cycle shifts, rate moves, and sector rotations. In a downturn, dividend sustainability or growth could stall, amplifying losses versus broad-market income substitutes. A value-oriented or broad-market dividend ETF may offer steadier income with far less concentration risk.
The megacaps in FDVV have durable cash flows and potential for dividend growth or buybacks in an AI-driven cycle; if those dynamics persist, FDVV could deliver defensible income and some upside, challenging the bearish read.
"FDVV serves as a tax-efficient, large-cap growth proxy rather than a pure income vehicle, making direct comparisons to value-heavy dividend ETFs structurally flawed."
Claude and ChatGPT are missing the tax-efficiency angle. Investors choose FDVV not just for yield, but for the 'qualified dividend' treatment of tech-heavy cash flows. Comparing it to SCHD ignores that SCHD’s value-sector concentration creates different tax drag and volatility profiles. The real risk isn't the tech overlap; it's the fund's 'quality' screen sensitivity. If the market shifts to small-cap value, FDVV’s large-cap bias will cause it to bleed assets, regardless of its dividend growth rate.
"FDVV's tech-heavy dividends face elevated cut risk from high payout ratios vulnerable to growth deceleration."
Gemini's tax-efficiency defense is overstated—SCHD and VYM deliver comparable qualified dividend benefits without FDVV's 20.5% megacap concentration. Unflagged risk: NVDA and AVGO payout ratios exceed 40% (vs S&P 30%), tying dividends to fragile AI growth; a 2025 slowdown could trigger cuts, eroding the 2.8% yield faster than in diversified peers like SCHD.
"FDVV's tax advantage is illusory; its true drag is screening-driven turnover, not dividend composition."
Grok's payout-ratio risk is concrete and underexplored. NVDA's 40%+ payout tied to AI capex cycles is materially different from SCHD's utility/energy base. But Gemini's tax-efficiency point deserves pushback: qualified dividend treatment applies equally across FDVV, SCHD, VYM—it's not a FDVV differentiator. The real tax drag in FDVV is turnover from screening, not the dividend type. That's a cost nobody quantified.
"Turnover-driven capital gains distributions may erase FDVV's yield edge; tax efficiency is not a reliable differentiator in taxable accounts."
Gemini overstates the tax angle. Qualified dividends aren’t a FDVV-only moat; the real issue is turnover-driven capital gains distributions in taxable accounts. FDVV’s screening can trigger higher realizations, eroding after-tax yield just as tech concentration risks drawdowns if AI growth slows. So in taxable accounts, tax drag may rival or exceed the touted 2.8% yield advantage, challenging the idea that FDVV offers superior after-tax income versus broad dividend peers.
The panel's net takeaway is that FDVV's high tech concentration (26.7%, with top-four techs at 20.5%) and underperformance versus S&P 500 (13.3% annualized since 2016) are significant concerns, despite its attractive yield (2.8%) and low expense ratio (0.15%). The fund's 'quality' screen sensitivity and potential payout ratio risks (NVDA, AVGO at 40%+) are additional red flags.
Attractive yield and low expense ratio
High tech concentration and potential payout ratio risks