FDRR vs QDF
Fidelity Dividend ETF for Rising Rates vs Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF
Which is better, FDRR or QDF?
Nearly the same fund. FDRR costs less.
FDRR has a lower expense ratio. FDRR led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. QDF is less concentrated, with 39.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 45.3%.
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 | FDRR | QDF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Best | 0.37% |
| AUM | $749M | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.05% | 1.52% |
| Holdings | 108 | 146 |
| YTD Return | +14.46%Best | +12.89% |
| 1Y Return | +21.24%Best | +17.43% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.78%Best | +19.13% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.09%Best | +11.89% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.2%Best | 15.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -37.6% | -37.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,498Best | $17,537 |
| Top 10 Weight | 45.3% | 39.3%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | Northern Trust Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Sep 12, 2016 | Dec 14, 2012 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 15, 2016 to Oct 14, 2026 (10.1 years).
FDRR vs QDF 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 covers the 10.1 years both funds cover.
FDRR vs QDF Performance
Fidelity Dividend ETF for Rising Rates (FDRR) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF (QDF) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year FDRR returned +21.24% while QDF returned +17.43%. Year to date, FDRR is up 14.46% versus a gain of 12.89% for QDF.
Over three years, FDRR compounded at +22.78% per year against +19.13% for QDF; over five years the annualized figures are +13.09% and +11.89% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, FDRR has the edge at +12.14% annualized vs +10.39%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QDF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.4% compared with 15.2% for FDRR. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -37.6% for FDRR and -37.2% for QDF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FDRR charges 0.15% per year while QDF charges 0.37%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $37 annually, a gap of $22 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FDRR currently yields 2.05% against 1.52% for QDF.
Holdings Overlap
61.9% of FDRR's money is in holdings QDF also owns. 50.8% of QDF's money is in holdings FDRR also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
38 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in FDRR and 140 in QDF, against full books of 108 and 146.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 100 positions for QDF that do not appear in our book for FDRR (48.1% of the fund), and 61 for FDRR that do not appear in QDF (32.8%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in FDRR | Weight in QDF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 8.18% | 9.39% | 1.21% |
| NVDANVIDIA Corporation | 9.33% | 8.02% | 1.31% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.63% | 4.55% | 2.08% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc Cl A | 5.03% | 2.31% | 2.72% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.44% | 2.59% | 0.85% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase & Co | 2.01% | 2.45% | 0.44% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson | 1.58% | 2.88% | 1.30% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc Class A | 2.35% | 1.57% | 0.78% |
| GEGeneral Electric Co. | 0.96% | 2.27% | 1.31% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.96% | 0.86% | 1.10% |
61.9% of FDRR is already inside QDF.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FDRR or QDF?
FDRR has an expense ratio of 0.15% while QDF charges 0.37%. FDRR is the cheaper option, by $22 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FDRR or QDF?
Over the past year FDRR returned +21.24% vs +17.43% for QDF, so FDRR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), FDRR annualized +12.14% vs +10.39% for QDF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FDRR or QDF?
QDF has been the more volatile fund at 15.4% annualized versus 15.2% for FDRR. Worst drawdown: FDRR -37.6% vs QDF -37.2%.
Should I hold both FDRR and QDF?
FDRR and QDF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FDRR and QDF?
61.9% of FDRR's money is in holdings QDF also owns. 50.8% of QDF's is in holdings FDRR also owns. They hold 38 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in FDRR and 140 in QDF.
Which pays a higher dividend, FDRR or QDF?
FDRR yields 2.05% while QDF yields 1.52%, so FDRR currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QDF better than FDRR?
FDRR has a lower expense ratio. FDRR led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. QDF is less concentrated, with 39.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 45.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.