BEDY vs QDEF
BNY Mellon Enhanced Dividend and Income ETF vs Northern Trust Quality Dividend Defensive ETF
Which is better, BEDY or QDEF?
BEDY has been ahead.
QDEF has a lower expense ratio. BEDY led over 1Y.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BEDY | QDEF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.37%Best |
| AUM | $284M | $555M |
| Dividend Yield | 5.43% | 1.60% |
| Holdings | 121 | 137 |
| YTD Return | +14.50%Best | +12.91% |
| 1Y Return | - | +16.44% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +20.19% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.98% |
| Fund Family | BNY Mellon Investment Management | Northern Trust Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 8, 2025 | Dec 14, 2012 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window, Top 10 Weight.
BEDY vs QDEF growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
BEDY vs QDEF Performance
BNY Mellon Enhanced Dividend and Income ETF (BEDY) is an ETF from BNY Mellon Investment Management and Northern Trust Quality Dividend Defensive ETF (QDEF) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Year to date, BEDY is up 14.50% versus a gain of 12.91% for QDEF.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BEDY charges 0.50% per year while QDEF charges 0.37%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $37 annually, a gap of $13 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BEDY currently yields 5.43% against 1.60% for QDEF.
Holdings Overlap
At least 17.9% of QDEF's money is in holdings BEDY also owns.
Stated as a floor: for BEDY, our book for it covers 90.3% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
QDEF and BEDY share little of their money.
17 positions in common, counted across the 57 positions we hold weights for in BEDY and 154 in QDEF, against full books of 121 and 137.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in BEDY | Weight in QDEF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.05% | 4.55% | 0.50% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 4.03% | 2.01% | 2.02% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 2.71% | 2.80% | 0.09% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 2.83% | 1.11% | 1.72% |
| PMPhilip Morris International Inc. | 1.73% | 2.06% | 0.33% |
| CLColgate-Palmolive Co | 2.29% | 0.56% | 1.73% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Incorporated | 2.80% | 0.02% | 2.78% |
| NEMNewmont Corp Common | 1.79% | 0.85% | 0.94% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 1.78% | 0.02% | 1.76% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.64% | 1.14% | 0.50% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of BEDY and QDEF you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BEDY or QDEF?
BEDY has an expense ratio of 0.50% while QDEF charges 0.37%. QDEF is the cheaper option, by $13 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between BEDY and QDEF?
At least 17.9% of QDEF's money is in holdings BEDY also owns. Our book for BEDY is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 17 positions in common, counted across the 57 positions we hold weights for in BEDY and 154 in QDEF.
Which pays a higher dividend, BEDY or QDEF?
BEDY yields 5.43% while QDEF yields 1.60%, so BEDY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QDEF better than BEDY?
QDEF has a lower expense ratio. BEDY led over 1Y. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.