FDVV Dividend Calculator
Dividend growth rate (CAGR)
| Year | Yield | Div / share | Annual income | Yield on cost | Cumulative income | Portfolio value | Shares |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.5% | $1.65 | $276.00 | 2.2% | $276.00 | $13,753 | 209.41 |
| 2 | 2.5% | $1.83 | $383.70 | 2.6% | $659.70 | $17,977 | 249.86 |
| 3 | 2.6% | $2.03 | $507.00 | 2.9% | $1,167 | $22,733 | 288.43 |
| 4 | 2.6% | $2.25 | $648.11 | 3.3% | $1,815 | $28,091 | 325.34 |
| 5 | 2.6% | $2.49 | $809.56 | 3.7% | $2,624 | $34,130 | 360.81 |
| 6 | 2.7% | $2.76 | $994.27 | 4.1% | $3,619 | $40,938 | 395.06 |
| 7 | 2.7% | $3.05 | $1,206 | 4.5% | $4,824 | $48,618 | 428.27 |
| 8 | 2.7% | $3.38 | $1,447 | 5.0% | $6,271 | $57,283 | 460.62 |
| 9 | 2.7% | $3.74 | $1,724 | 5.5% | $7,995 | $67,065 | 492.26 |
| 10 | 2.8% | $4.14 | $2,040 | 6.0% | $10,035 | $78,113 | 523.37 |
Year 1-10 dividend income (preview)
Based on a $10,000 initial investment with $200.00 monthly contributions, DRIP on.
Historical dividends per share
Recent dividends
| Ex-date | Cash amount | TTM yield | Fwd yield | Share price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-20 | $0.44 | 3.8% | 3.2% | $54.23 |
| 2025-12-19 | $0.39 | 3.8% | 2.8% | $56.33 |
| 2025-09-19 | $0.38 | 3.7% | 2.7% | $55.31 |
| 2025-06-20 | $0.45 | 3.9% | 3.5% | $50.78 |
| 2025-03-21 | $0.42 | 3.1% | 3.4% | $49.65 |
| 2024-12-20 | $0.48 | 2.9% | 3.8% | $49.85 |
| 2024-09-20 | $0.30 | 2.8% | 2.4% | $50.06 |
| 2024-06-21 | $0.32 | 3.0% | 2.7% | $46.98 |
| 2024-03-15 | $0.37 | 4.4% | 3.4% | $44.22 |
| 2023-12-15 | $0.42 | 4.3% | 4.0% | $41.56 |
| 2023-09-15 | $0.31 | 4.3% | 3.1% | $40.01 |
| 2023-06-16 | $0.36 | 4.6% | 3.6% | $39.57 |
Source: Polygon.io. Last 12 dividend distributions, most recent first. TTM yield = sum of last 12 months of payments ÷ share price on ex-date. Forward yield = this payment × detected payout frequency ÷ share price on ex-date.
About FDVV
FDVV — the Fidelity High Dividend ETF — is a rules-based, multi-factor dividend ETF issued by Fidelity that tracks the Fidelity High Dividend Index. The index targets US large- and mid-cap companies that combine an above-average dividend yield with positive dividend-growth characteristics and a quality-factor screen, drawn from a starting universe of approximately the thousand largest US-listed stocks. The selection methodology is a composite multi-factor score that weights yield, payout growth, and quality (profitability and balance-sheet strength) into a single ranking, and the index then selects roughly one hundred names from the top of that ranking, weighted on a factor-composite basis rather than on pure market capitalization. The resulting portfolio is a concentrated diversified dividend basket — not a cap-weighted index of every dividend payer, and not a simple high-yield filter — that aims to deliver an above-market yield without sacrificing fundamental quality or future dividend-growth potential.
FDVV's factor-weighted construction is what distinguishes it from cap-weighted dividend benchmarks. A pure cap-weighted dividend index like the Dow Jones US Select Dividend (DVY) sizes positions by the market value of the underlying companies, which concentrates exposure in the largest mature payers regardless of factor characteristics. FDVV's factor-composite weighting instead sizes each position according to its score on the combined yield-growth-quality screen, which tilts the portfolio toward names that rank well on the factor criteria even when their market cap is moderate, and underweights or excludes names that have high yield but weak growth or quality scores. The index reconstitutes and rebalances on a defined schedule (roughly semiannual), at which point the factor scores are recomputed and the holdings adjusted to reflect any changes in the underlying companies' scores. The reconstitution introduces some turnover but keeps the portfolio aligned with the factor objective over time.
FDVV versus SCHD is the comparison most investors should run when evaluating factor-based dividend ETFs from major retail brokerages. SCHD — the Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF tracking the Dow Jones US Dividend 100 Index — also uses a multi-step screen that filters for ten-year dividend continuity and quality (return on equity, cash-flow-to-debt) before selecting the hundred highest-yielding names that pass all earlier gates and weighting them by a modified cap-weighted-and-yield composite. The two funds are similar in spirit — both are rules-based factor-screen dividend funds with approximately one hundred holdings, comparable headline yields (typically in the three-to-three-and-a-half-percent range), comparable historical dividend growth rates, and broadly diversified large-cap US equity exposure. The methodologies are distinct in detail: FDVV runs a single composite-factor score (yield, growth, quality combined), while SCHD runs a sequential gating process (quality and continuity filters first, then yield ranking). The sector allocations differ as a result — FDVV typically holds a different mix of sectors than SCHD because the factor weights produce different rankings — and the rebalance schedules and turnover rates differ as well. Investors choosing between them are not choosing between an income fund and a growth fund; they are choosing between two related implementations of the same broad strategy, and the practical difference over multi-year horizons tends to be modest in absolute terms but visible at the margins (slightly different sector tilts, slightly different yield-vs-growth balance, slightly different tax-lot histories). The expense ratios are competitive on both, and the funds are largely interchangeable for the purpose of dividend-portfolio construction; some investors hold both for methodology diversification.
How FDVV pays distributions
FDVV distributes quarterly. The ex-dividend date typically falls in the third week of the third month of each quarter (March, June, September, December), with the pay date following a few business days later. The per-share cash amount each quarter reflects the underlying dividend income collected from the approximately one hundred portfolio names during the quarter, smoothed by Fidelity's distribution policy across the fiscal year. The aggregate annual distribution typically corresponds to a forward yield in the low three-to-three-and-a-half-percent range on NAV, varying modestly across quarters depending on the timing of underlying dividend ex-dates and on the manager's tax-management of realized gains and losses inside the wrapper. Over multi-year horizons the per-share annual distribution has tended to grow at a low-to-mid-single-digit pace, reflecting both the underlying companies' dividend growth and the factor-driven turnover at each reconstitution that periodically rebalances the basket toward higher-scoring (and often higher-yielding) names.
FDVV's distributions are largely classified as qualified dividends for US tax purposes, because the underlying holdings are US large- and mid-cap equities held inside the fund's wrapper for the standard qualifying holding period. Qualified dividend treatment subjects the distributions to the long-term capital gains rate structure rather than ordinary income rates, which is favorable for taxable-account holders in middle and upper marginal brackets. The year-end 1099-DIV reports the qualified versus non-qualified split, and the bulk of FDVV's distributions have historically qualified. Tax-advantaged accounts (IRA, Roth IRA, 401(k)) sidestep the qualified-versus-ordinary distinction entirely — distributions reinvest without current-year tax consequences inside the wrapper. The expense ratio on FDVV is competitive with the major rules-based dividend ETFs from the other large retail brokerages and is well below the actively managed dividend-and-options ETFs, which makes FDVV a defensible long-horizon hold from a fee-drag perspective.
Who FDVV suits
FDVV suits investors who want a quality-screened, factor-weighted dividend exposure as a core dividend-portfolio holding, accept the quarterly distribution cadence rather than the monthly cadence available from covered-call funds, and prefer a rules-based methodology with periodic reconstitution over either pure cap-weighted dividend exposure or actively managed dividend selection. The fund's combination of above-average headline yield, positive expected dividend growth from the underlying companies, and quality-factor screening makes it appropriate as a buy-and-hold dividend core position over long horizons. The reconstitution mechanic introduces some turnover but typically improves the factor-alignment of the portfolio over time, which can produce a modestly better realized total return than a static cap-weighted dividend basket over full market cycles.
FDVV is most often compared head-to-head with SCHD, and many investors hold one or the other as their primary US dividend ETF rather than running both in parallel. The choice between them is methodological rather than strategic — both deliver the same broad outcome (a quality-screened multi-factor dividend basket with low fees and tax-efficient qualified-dividend distributions). FDVV holders who appreciate Fidelity's overall brokerage ecosystem and prefer the composite-score methodology tend to choose FDVV; SCHD holders who prefer Schwab's brokerage relationship or value the sequential-gate methodology tend to choose SCHD. Investors who want a broader dividend exposure with more names and a pure cap-weighted methodology should look at VYM (Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF, approximately five hundred holdings, lower yield, broader and more cap-weighted than FDVV). Investors who want maximum monthly cash flow rather than quarterly should look at the covered-call funds (JEPI, JEPQ, QYLD) or to the small set of monthly-paying dividend ETFs (DIVO, SPHD), accepting the structural trade-offs of those alternatives. The dividend calculator on this page models FDVV with the current forward yield and a chosen DGR; a low-to-mid-single-digit DGR is defensible given the fund's history and the underlying companies' aggregate dividend-growth trajectory.
Hypothetical scenarios
Scenario 1: $50,000 in FDVV for quarterly income with DRIP
Consider a hypothetical position of $50,000 in FDVV, held for quarterly income with DRIP enabled. At a forward yield in the low-three-to-three-and-a-half-percent range against the current per-share quarterly rate, the starting annualized cash distribution on $50,000 is roughly $1,500 to $1,750, paid in four quarterly installments of approximately $375 to $440 each. With DRIP on, the reinvested quarterly distributions purchase additional shares at the prevailing price on each pay date, and the share count compounds on a four-times-per-year cadence — slower than the twelve-times-per-year compounding available from a monthly fund but consistent with the underlying-equity-dividend collection cycle of the portfolio's roughly one hundred holdings.
The structural story for FDVV is that the distribution stream has a positive expected growth driver beyond the static current yield. The Fidelity High Dividend Index's selection methodology screens for positive dividend-growth characteristics in addition to current yield, and the underlying companies in the portfolio are largely US large- and mid-cap firms with established dividend policies and aggregate dividend-growth profiles in the low-to-mid-single-digit range over multi-year periods. The index's periodic reconstitution (roughly semiannual) also serves a growth-supporting role — at each reconstitution the factor scores are recomputed and the holdings are adjusted to maintain alignment with the methodology, which tends to add new high-quality dividend payers and remove names whose characteristics have deteriorated. The combined effect is that the per-share dividend on FDVV has historically grown at a low-to-mid-single-digit pace over multi-year horizons, in addition to the static yield contribution.
The illustrative compounding picture across a five-year window combines three contributions: the current cash yield reinvesting at the prevailing price each quarter, the per-share dividend growth from the underlying companies and the reconstitution mechanic combined, and the price appreciation (or depreciation) of the underlying basket itself. In a flat-to-modestly-rising US large- and mid-cap dividend environment, the share count compounds steadily via DRIP, the per-share dividend grows in the low-to-mid-single-digit range each year, and the NAV per share appreciates modestly with the underlying equities — the total return is the sum of these three contributions over the holding period. In a strong dividend-equity bull market, NAV appreciation dominates and DRIP reinvests at progressively higher prices (which slows share-count growth but reflects the underlying value gain). In a drawdown environment, NAV declines and DRIP reinvests at lower prices (favorable for long-term share-count compounding on subsequent recovery), with the dividend stream typically continuing through the drawdown given the quality screen in the methodology.
The honest planning takeaway is that FDVV's calculator output is a reasonable approximation of the realized income stream over multi-year horizons, particularly when a low-to-mid-single-digit DGR is used to reflect both the underlying companies' growth and the reconstitution effect. The fund is a defensible core dividend holding for buy-and-hold investors with quarterly-cadence preference and a multi-year-or-longer horizon. Scenario 2 compares FDVV directly with SCHD, the most natural peer.
Scenario 2: FDVV versus SCHD — the two factor-based dividend ETFs from major retail brokerages
Consider a hypothetical side-by-side comparison: $25,000 invested in FDVV and $25,000 invested in SCHD on the same date, both held for five years with DRIP enabled and identical contribution assumptions, both subject to the same broad US large- and mid-cap dividend-equity market environment over that window. The two positions then represent the two leading factor-based dividend ETFs from the major retail brokerages — FDVV from Fidelity, SCHD from Schwab — and the comparison illustrates how two similar-in-spirit methodologies produce two related but distinct realized outcomes.
FDVV's index methodology runs a composite multi-factor score that weights yield, dividend growth, and quality (profitability and balance-sheet strength) into a single ranking, and selects the top names from that ranking with factor-composite weighting. The headline yield typically sits in the three-to-three-and-a-half-percent range, the sector allocation reflects whichever sectors score best on the composite at the current reconstitution, and the dividend growth contribution reflects the included companies' aggregate dividend-policy progression plus the reconstitution effect. SCHD's index methodology uses a sequential gating process — a ten-year dividend-continuity filter and a quality filter (return on equity, cash-flow-to-debt) run first, and then the top one hundred names by indicated yield are selected from the survivors, weighted by a modified cap-and-yield composite. The headline yield typically sits in a similar range to FDVV's, the sector allocation differs because the gating order produces a different set of survivors, and the dividend growth contribution reflects SCHD's underlying companies and its annual reconstitution effect.
In a five-year window where both portfolios encounter similar broad equity-dividend conditions, the realized total returns on FDVV and SCHD tend to be similar in magnitude but distinct in detail. The headline yield difference between the two is typically small (within thirty basis points either way) and varies across years depending on which factor weights are dominant at each reconstitution. The dividend growth rate difference is also typically small (the underlying companies overlap substantially, and the methodologies both target high-quality dividend payers with positive growth characteristics). The sector tilt differences can produce more visible divergence — in years where a particular sector outperforms or underperforms, the fund with heavier exposure to that sector outperforms or underperforms the other by a corresponding amount. Over full market cycles the differences tend to wash out, but at any given snapshot the two funds can show meaningfully different year-on-year returns.
The structural lesson is that FDVV and SCHD are two related implementations of the same broad factor-based dividend-ETF strategy. Both are appropriate as a core dividend-portfolio holding; both deliver the same general outcome over multi-year horizons; the methodology differences are real but second-order in practical terms. Investors choosing between them based on a single five-year backtest are choosing on noise — both produce similar enough outcomes that the choice is reasonably made on non-performance factors (brokerage relationship, expense-ratio penny differences, methodology preference, tax-lot continuity). Investors who want methodology diversification can hold both, accepting that the overlap in underlying holdings is meaningful but not complete. The calculator on this page can model either fund using its current forward yield and a low-to-mid-single-digit DGR assumption; the realized differences over the actual holding window depend on the path of the underlying equity-dividend market and on the funds' respective reconstitution outcomes. Educational only; not a forecast.
Sources & methodology
Dividend history and price data come from Polygon.io's reference and aggregates endpoints. Forward yield is computed as the sum of the most recent four cash distributions divided by the previous-close share price. The dividend growth rate shown on this page is the compound annual growth rate of total annual distributions across the available history in this snapshot.
Last updated: 2026-05-15.
Information here is for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Past dividend history does not guarantee future payments. Verify all figures with the issuer or a registered financial advisor before making investment decisions.