Invesco S&P Ultra Dividend Revenue ETF (RDIV) holdings & weights
Per-holding contribution · concentration · sector skew — a deep read
25 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 83.05%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
Weight and calculation basis
25 identified stocks · net exposure / NAV 83.05%. Display weights are normalized to 100%; calculations retain original exposures without an additional leverage multiplier. Cash and unallocated contracts are excluded from stock attribution.
Today's summary
On a constituent basis, Invesco S&P Ultra Dividend Revenue ETF's theoretical return is -0.03%p. Today's biggest hero is American Tower, contributing -0.03%p (return -1.21%). The biggest suspect dragging it down is American Tower, at -0.03%p.
Its top 10 holdings make up about 61.4% of the fund. The concentration index (HHI) is 491 — Low — evenly diversified, and the largest sector is Consumer Staples (24%). The higher the concentration, the more one stock or sector drives the whole ETF's return.
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Concentration is below 1,500 (491), so no single holding dominates.
The largest sector is Consumer Staples at 24% — industries are reasonably spread.
A 2x leveraged fund. It resets exposure daily, so over more than a few days the result drifts from "index move × 2". Built for short holds.
We don't have cost, fund size for Invesco S&P Ultra Dividend Revenue ETF yet, so those axes are excluded and the score is based on the other 3. Scoring a missing figure as zero would grade our data collection, not the fund.
Concentration and diversification
Structural health
A five-axis read on how this fund is built. It is not a return forecast or a recommendation, and a low score does not mean a bad fund — leveraged products score low by design. Each axis shows the figure behind it.
Concentration is below 1,500 (491), so no single holding dominates.
The largest sector is Consumer Staples at 24% — industries are reasonably spread.
A 2x leveraged fund. It resets exposure daily, so over more than a few days the result drifts from "index move × 2". Built for short holds.
We don't have cost, fund size for Invesco S&P Ultra Dividend Revenue ETF yet, so those axes are excluded and the score is based on the other 3. Scoring a missing figure as zero would grade our data collection, not the fund.
Top 20 holdings
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
Normalized to 100% of analysed positions
Weights are normalized to 100% of absolute exposures across analysed positions, including positions outside this top list. Cash, collateral and unverified assets are excluded. Contributions retain original signed NAV exposures; leverage is not applied twice.
| # | Holding | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ChevronCVX | 7.32% |
| 2 | TargetTGT | 7.02% |
| 3 | AT&TT | 6.39% |
| 4 | Bristol-Myers SquibbBMY | 6.18% |
| 5 | Prudential FinancialPRU | 6.13% |
| 6 | PepsiCoPEP | 6.09% |
| 7 | ComcastCMCSA | 5.85% |
| 8 | Truist FinancialTFC | 5.72% |
| 9 | Ford MotorF | 5.42% |
| 10 | International PaperIP | 5.32% |
| 11 | Kinder MorganKMI | 4.37% |
| 12 | Kimberly-ClarkKMB | 3.83% |
| 13 | Dominion EnergyD | 3.78% |
| 14 | Eversource EnergyES | 2.99% |
| 15 | American TowerAMT | 2.88% |
| 16 | Fidelity National FinancialFNF | 2.85% |
| 17 | Molson Coors BeverageTAP | 2.57% |
| 18 | Hormel FoodsHRL | 2.36% |
| 19 | The J. M. SmuckerSJM | 2.32% |
| 20 | KeyCorpKEY | 2.30% |
Holdings below 0.5% or outside the top list are folded into “Others” and omitted above.
Where the weight sits — sector mix
Listed equity weights summed by sector and normalized to 100%. Each band is one sector's share.
Industry breakdown
HHI sums the squared weights. The more it leans on a few names, the higher it goes — and the more the whole ETF moves with them.
Leverage / inverse caveat
This fund tracks its index at 2x.
That 2x applies to a **single day**. Held longer, the daily reset makes the period return drift from 2x the index: if the index chops up and down and returns to where it started, this fund is still down. That is volatility decay.
It bites hardest in sideways markets and compounds with holding time. These are built for short directional trades.
How concentrated is it
Concentration (HHI) is low at 491, with the top 10 holdings at just 61.4% of equity weight. No single name can dominate the fund.
Good for damping single-stock risk — and equally, a big winner inside gets diluted.
HHI squares each weight and sums them: 10,000 means one stock is everything, and the more evenly spread the holdings, the closer it falls to zero.
Where the sector weight sits
Sectors run Consumer Staples(24%) · Financials(19%) · Communication Services(12%), and even the largest is only 24% — no meaningful industry tilt.
This is built to track a market rather than to call a sector.
Weights above sum the individually listed equities and normalize that equity total to 100%.
How much it overlaps others
Even its closest peer, FDL, overlaps only 30% (10 shared names).
Funds filed under the same label can hold quite different companies, so pairing this one with another may genuinely spread risk.
What it is made of
Equities are 83.0% of the fund, the rest swaps and cash — index exposure built synthetically rather than by owning the shares, which adds counterparty risk.
This page is not investment advice. Investment decisions and responsibility are your own.
RDIV comments
Leave a one-line take on Invesco S&P Ultra Dividend Revenue ETF. No account — just a nickname and a code to delete it later.
Loading…
Similar ETFs
Picked by how much their actual holdings overlap. The higher the overlap, the less diversification you get from owning both.