NUDG vs RVRB
Nuveen Dividend Growth Fund ETF vs Reverb ETF
Which is better, NUDG or RVRB?
RVRB has been ahead.
RVRB has a lower expense ratio. RVRB led over 1Y. RVRB is less concentrated, with 38.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 42.3%.
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 | NUDG | RVRB |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.61% | 0.30%Best |
| AUM | $6.2B | $5M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.50% | 0.86% |
| Holdings | 43 | 499 |
| Volatility (annualized) | - | 12.9% |
| Max Drawdown | - | -19.1% |
| Top 10 Weight | 42.3% | 38.2%Best |
| Fund Family | Nuveen | Reverb ETF |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 2, 2026 | Nov 3, 2022 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), $10,000 over the window.
The two price series end 202 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. NUDG has data through Oct 14, 2026 and RVRB through Mar 26, 2026.
Fees and Cost Over Time
NUDG charges 0.61% per year while RVRB charges 0.30%. On a $10,000 position that is $61 vs $30 annually, a gap of $31 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, NUDG currently yields 0.50% against 0.86% for RVRB.
Holdings Overlap
86.2% of NUDG's money is in holdings RVRB also owns. 25.8% of RVRB's money is in holdings NUDG also owns.
Most of NUDG is already inside RVRB. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
The two holdings books were reported 243 days apart, NUDG as of Aug 31, 2026 and RVRB as of Dec 31, 2025, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
37 positions in common, counted across the 42 positions we hold weights for in NUDG and 493 in RVRB, against full books of 43 and 499.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 407 positions for RVRB that do not appear in our book for NUDG (70.2% of the fund), and 4 for NUDG that do not appear in RVRB (8.3%).
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 NUDG | Weight in RVRB | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 7.67% | 5.92% | 1.75% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.37% | 5.40% | 0.97% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 5.11% | 2.52% | 2.59% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 3.72% | 1.27% | 2.45% |
| APHAmphenol Corp. Class A | 3.83% | 0.29% | 3.54% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 2.54% | 0.76% | 1.78% |
| WMTWalmart, Inc. | 1.79% | 1.28% | 0.51% |
| XOMExxonmobil Holdings Corp Common Stock Usd | 2.01% | 0.88% | 1.13% |
| LINLinde Plc Ordinary Shares | 2.45% | 0.32% | 2.13% |
| NEENextera Energy Inc | 2.43% | 0.28% | 2.15% |
86.2% of NUDG is already inside RVRB.
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, NUDG or RVRB?
NUDG has an expense ratio of 0.61% while RVRB charges 0.30%. RVRB is the cheaper option, by $31 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between NUDG and RVRB?
86.2% of NUDG's money is in holdings RVRB also owns. 25.8% of RVRB's is in holdings NUDG also owns. They hold 37 positions in common, counted across the 42 positions we hold weights for in NUDG and 493 in RVRB.
Which pays a higher dividend, NUDG or RVRB?
NUDG yields 0.50% while RVRB yields 0.86%, so RVRB currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RVRB better than NUDG?
RVRB has a lower expense ratio. RVRB led over 1Y. RVRB is less concentrated, with 38.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 42.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.