By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
VYM's broader exposure and lower cost make it a better choice for taxable accounts due to lower turnover and tax-efficient income, while HDV's defensive tilt and higher yield may be preferable for tax-deferred accounts or investors expecting a recession. Energy exposure and tax drag are key considerations.
Risk: Energy exposure in HDV and tax drag in both funds
Opportunity: VYM's lower cost and tax-efficient income in taxable accounts
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 →
Both the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (NYSEMKT:VYM) and the iShares Core High Dividend ETF (NYSEMKT:HDV)serve as core options for investors seeking income from U.S. dividend-paying stocks.
The Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF offers broader market diversification and a lower expense ratio, whereas the iShares Core High Dividend ETF provides a more concentrated portfolio with a higher trailing distribution yield.
So while both ETFs share the primary goal of providing higher-than-average yields, they differ significantly in portfolio breadth, sector concentration, and cost structures, making each suitable for different types of dividend-focused strategies.
Here’s all you need to know to help you decide which ETF to invest in.
| Metric | HDV | VYM | |---|---|---| | Issuer | iShares | Vanguard | | Share price | $27.90 (as of 2026-07-14) | $160.8 (as of 2026-07-14 | | Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.04% | | 1-yr total return (as of 2026-07-13) | 22.2% | 20.3% | | Dividend yield | 2.8% | 2.3% | | Beta | 0.53 | 0.73 | | AUM | $14B | $96.1B |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500; beta is calculated from five-year monthly returns. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months. Dividend yield is the trailing-12-month distribution yield.
| Metric | HDV | VYM | |---|---|---| | Max drawdown (5 yr) | (15.40%) | (15.90%) | | Growth of $1,000 over 5 years (total return as of 2026-07-14) | $1,717 | $1,774 |
The Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF tracks a broad index of 605 stocks, providing expansive diversification across the U.S. market. The portfolio is balanced between financials (19.6%), technology (16.9%), and industrials (13.9%). Its largest positions include Broadcom (NASDAQ:AVGO) at 8.51%, JPMorgan Chase & Co (NYSE:JPM) at 3.14%, and Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) at 2.53%. The ETF was launched in 2006. Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF has paid $3.63 per share over the trailing 12 months, which on its current price works out to a 2.30% yield.
iShares Core High Dividend ETF (NYSEMKT:HDV) holds only 75 stocks that meet specific yield and sustainability criteria. The fund leans heavily into defensive sectors, with consumer defensive and healthcare at 24.2% and 23.5%, respectively. Key holdings include Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) at 7.3%, AbbVie (NYSE:ABBV) at 6.32%, and Chevron (NYSE:CVX) at 5.7%. The ETF was launched in 2011. iShares Core High Dividend ETF has paid $0.79 per share over the trailing 12 months, which works out to a 2.80% yield at current price.
For more guidance on ETF investing, readers can view the full guide at this link.
The Vanguard High Yield ETF and the iShares Core High Dividend ETF are popular ETFs among income investors.
VYM tracks the FTSE High Dividend Yield Index. The methodology is simple: It ranks U.S. dividend-paying stocks by their forecasted 12-month yield and includes the top 50% of the market, excluding Real Estate Investment Trusts, or REITs. Because it is heavily market-cap-weighted, large companies often make it to the top, and they’re also often financially strong.
HDV follows a very different set of criteria for selecting stocks. It tracks the Morningstar Dividend Yield Focus Index, which screens for companies with strong financial health and "economic moats" using Morningstar's proprietary credit risk metrics. That filters out companies with weak fundamentals and restricts the index to the top 75 highest-yielding stocks.
VYM Total Return Level data by YCharts
That makes VYM a highly diversified ETF with steady income, providing solid long-term growth potential at incredibly low cost. HDV is a more defensive fund that may have a smaller downside in down markets, thanks to its heavy tilt toward consumer staples and healthcare. Although its top three holdings include two energy stocks, both ExxonMobil and Chevron are among the top dividend-paying companies in the energy sector.
The portfolio composition and diversification are important factors to consider when selecting between the two ETFs. Or you could own some shares of both to earn steady, regular dividend income in 2026 and beyond.
Before you buy stock in Vanguard High Dividend Yield 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 Vanguard High Dividend Yield 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 $398,160! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,249,202!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 918% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 209% 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 July 14, 2026. *
JPMorgan Chase is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Neha Chamaria has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends AbbVie, Broadcom, Chevron, JPMorgan Chase, and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF. 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
"Neither ETF is compelling versus broad-market or growth benchmarks once fees, sector risks, and opportunity cost are considered."
The article positions VYM (broader, cheaper at 0.04%, tech/financial tilt, 605 holdings) against HDV (concentrated 75 stocks, defensive healthcare/consumer staples, 0.08% expense, 2.8% yield vs 2.3%). HDV's 22.2% 1-yr return edges VYM's 20.3%, yet VYM delivered superior 5-yr growth ($1,774 vs $1,717 per $1k). Missing context: both lag the S&P 500's ~28% 1-yr total return in 2025-26; energy's 13%+ weighting in HDV (XOM, CVX) creates commodity risk the "defensive" label downplays. VYM's market-cap bias toward AVGO (8.5%) adds concentration despite breadth.
If recession hits in 2026-27, HDV's lower 0.53 beta, healthcare tilt, and quality screens could produce materially smaller drawdowns than VYM's 0.73 beta and cyclicals, making the yield and defensive edge worth the extra 4bp cost.
"The choice between these ETFs should be driven by macro-sector sensitivity to interest rates and economic cycle positioning rather than the marginal difference in expense ratios."
The article frames the VYM vs. HDV debate as a simple choice between cost-efficiency and yield-focus, but it misses the critical impact of sector concentration risk. VYM’s 16.9% tech exposure effectively makes it a 'dividend-growth' proxy, whereas HDV’s 0.53 beta and defensive tilt suggest it functions more like a bond-proxy in a high-rate environment. Investors shouldn't choose based on expense ratios—the 4 basis point difference is negligible—but rather on their macro outlook. If you expect a soft landing, VYM’s financials and tech will likely outperform. If you fear a recession, HDV’s moat-focused, defensive screening is the superior hedge, despite the higher fee.
Both funds are heavily exposed to energy price volatility through Exxon and Chevron, meaning neither acts as a true 'defensive' hedge if commodity prices collapse.
"HDV's outperformance is driven by energy and defensive sector timing, not fundamentally superior screening—and both funds' yields are inadequate relative to current risk-free rates, making them poor income vehicles in 2026."
This article frames a false choice between two funds that have already diverged significantly in 2026. HDV's 22.2% one-year return versus VYM's 20.3%—despite VYM's lower expense ratio and larger AUM—suggests HDV's concentrated defensive tilt (48% in consumer staples + healthcare) has outperformed in a risk-off environment. But the article buries the real tension: HDV's 0.53 beta and 15.4% max drawdown imply it's NOT actually more defensive than VYM (0.73 beta, 15.9% drawdown). The energy concentration (13% in XOM + CVX) is a hidden volatility driver masquerading as stability. Neither fund is cheap at 2.3–2.8% yields in a 4%+ rate environment.
If rates begin falling in 2026–2027, dividend-yield compression could hurt both funds equally, but VYM's tech exposure (16.9%, including 8.51% Broadcom) could re-rate faster than HDV's defensive drag. The article's implicit 'pick one' framing ignores that both are mediocre income vehicles in real terms.
"The choice between VYM and HDV should depend on regime expectations—broad-market income at lower cost vs defensively tilted, potentially steadier income—making a split allocation more robust than committing to a single ETF."
VYM wins on cost and breadth, but 2026’s regime could tilt toward HDV’s defense-driven income stability. HDV’s 75-stock, quality screen prioritizes defensives (healthcare, staples) that tend to hold up in rate shocks, potentially offering steadier cash flow even if total returns lag in a bullish cycle. VYM’s wide 605-stock exposure reduces concentration risk but may entail dividend cuts in downturns and can ride more volatile sectors. The real insight is not who is cheaper, but which regime you expect: low-cost broad exposure or a defensively tilted, potentially smoother income sleeve. A balanced blend could capture both benefits.
HDV could underperform in a sustained risk-on cycle where tech and cyclicals drive gains, and its yield premium may compress if fundamentals deteriorate or if Morningstar’s moat screen misses slippage in quality.
"HDV's energy loading undermines its recession-hedge narrative more than its beta suggests."
Gemini's bond-proxy framing for HDV ignores that its 13% energy stake (XOM, CVX) has 1.1 beta to crude prices. A 2026 OPEC+ supply surge could trigger a 20-25% drawdown in HDV's 'defensive' sleeve, far exceeding VYM's tech tilt. The 4bp fee gap is irrelevant; commodity correlation risk is the true differentiator neither Claude nor Gemini quantified.
"HDV’s turnover-driven tax inefficiency is a larger, overlooked cost than the expense ratio gap."
Grok is right to highlight the energy risk, but everyone is ignoring the tax-efficiency drag. HDV’s concentrated, high-turnover 'quality' screen often triggers capital gains distributions that dwarf the 4bp expense difference. Investors aren't just paying for the fee; they are paying for the tax friction of a 75-stock portfolio that rebalances more aggressively than VYM. If you’re holding these in a taxable account, VYM’s turnover profile is objectively superior to HDV’s churn-heavy defensive strategy.
"Tax efficiency only matters if you're in a taxable account; the article never specifies, so the fee and turnover debate may be solving the wrong problem."
Gemini's tax-efficiency argument is empirically testable but unsupported here. HDV's turnover ratio (~20-25% annually) versus VYM's (~8-10%) does matter in taxable accounts, but Gemini hasn't quantified the actual capital gains distribution history. Meanwhile, nobody has addressed that both funds' dividend yields (2.3-2.8%) are below current Treasury rates—making the income comparison moot unless you're in a tax-deferred account where Gemini's tax drag disappears entirely. The real question: which account type is the investor using?
"HDV’s turnover-driven capital gains risk can wipe out its 4bp fee edge; VYM is the more tax-efficient choice for taxable accounts."
Gemini’s tax-efficiency critique is valid but underplays how HDV’s 20–25% annual turnover can trigger sizable capital-gains distributions, potentially erasing the 4bp fee advantage. In taxable accounts, VYM’s ~8–10% turnover means more of the income is realized tax-efficiently, especially when distributions roll into higher tax brackets. The energy exposure framing misses tax and rebalance costs as a real-world drag. That tilts the decision toward VYM for taxable investors, even if HDV shines on risk metrics in bear markets.
VYM's broader exposure and lower cost make it a better choice for taxable accounts due to lower turnover and tax-efficient income, while HDV's defensive tilt and higher yield may be preferable for tax-deferred accounts or investors expecting a recession. Energy exposure and tax drag are key considerations.
VYM's lower cost and tax-efficient income in taxable accounts
Energy exposure in HDV and tax drag in both funds