NBDS vs. HDV

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

NBDS (Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF) and HDV (iShares Core High Dividend ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NBDS is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Neuberger Berman, while HDV is a Dividend fund tracking the Morningstar Dividend Yield Focus Index. NBDS is actively managed, while HDV is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, NBDS returned 22.75%/yr vs 14.97%/yr for HDV. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NBDS charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for HDV.

Performance

NBDS vs. HDV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF (NBDS) and iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBDS achieves a 19.24% return, which is significantly higher than HDV's 12.57% return.

NBDS

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: 8.20%
• YTD: 19.24%
• 6M: 16.92%
• 1Y: 32.93%
• 3Y*: 22.75%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

HDV

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -2.65%
• YTD: 12.57%
• 6M: 12.67%
• 1Y: 19.54%
• 3Y*: 14.97%
• 5Y*: 10.90%
• 10Y*: 9.31%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NBDS vs. HDV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
NBDS Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF	19.24%	19.58%	17.97%	38.55%	-24.78%
HDV iShares Core High Dividend ETF	12.57%	11.90%	14.16%	1.72%	-0.62%

Correlation

The correlation between NBDS and HDV is -0.16, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.16
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2022	0.25

The correlation between NBDS and HDV shifts across timeframes, from -0.16 (1 year) to 0.25 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NBDS vs. HDV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NBDS	HDV
Technology	61.4%	0.2%
Healthcare	9.0%	22.6%
Industrials	8.2%	3.5%
Financial Services	5.6%	4.7%
Consumer Cyclical	5.1%	9.2%
Communication Services	3.3%	5.7%
Utilities	2.4%	8.1%
Basic Materials	-	0.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	24.5%
Energy	-	20.2%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

NBDS vs. HDV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

NBDS

NBDS Risk / Return Rank: 32
NBDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
NBDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
NBDS Omega Ratio Rank: 34
NBDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
NBDS Martin Ratio Rank: 27

HDV

HDV Risk / Return Rank: 64
HDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
HDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
HDV Omega Ratio Rank: 57
HDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
HDV Martin Ratio Rank: 60

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

NBDS vs. HDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF (NBDS) and iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	NBDS	HDV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	1.99	-0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.74	2.92	-1.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.34	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.38	3.79	-2.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.59	10.39	-6.80

NBDS vs. HDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBDS Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is lower than the HDV Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBDS and HDV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

NBDS vs. HDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBDS drawdown since its inception was -29.93%, smaller than the maximum HDV drawdown of -37.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBDS and HDV.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBDS	HDV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.93%	-37.04%	+7.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.96%	-5.18%	-18.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.51%	-10.49%	-18.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-15.42%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.04%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.65%	+2.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.49%	-3.08%	-6.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.19%	1.89%	+7.30%

Volatility

NBDS vs. HDV - Volatility Comparison

Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF (NBDS) has a higher volatility of 11.27% compared to iShares Core High Dividend ETF (HDV) at 3.37%. This indicates that NBDS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HDV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NBDS	HDV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.27%	3.37%	+7.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.46%	7.52%	+13.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.43%	9.87%	+16.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.91%	12.80%	+15.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.91%	15.74%	+12.17%

NBDS vs. HDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBDS has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than HDV's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBDS vs. HDV - Dividend Comparison

NBDS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%, less than HDV's 2.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HDV iShares Core High Dividend ETF	2.94%	3.22%	3.67%	3.82%	3.56%	3.47%	4.07%	3.27%	3.67%	3.27%	3.28%	3.92%
NBDS Neuberger Berman Disrupters ETF	0.32%	0.38%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBDS and HDV in my portfolio?

NBDS and HDV have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NBDS or HDV?

NBDS has higher volatility (11.27%) compared to HDV (3.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBDS dropped -29.93% vs HDV's -37.04%.

Which ETF is better, NBDS or HDV?

On 3-year performance, NBDS leads with 22.75% vs 14.97% for HDV. On fees, HDV is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, HDV has been the lower-risk option at 3.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBDS or HDV?

Over the 3-year period, NBDS has performed better with a 22.75% return vs 14.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBDS or HDV?

HDV is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for NBDS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NBDS or HDV?

HDV has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 0.32% for NBDS.

What is the main difference between NBDS and HDV?

NBDS is categorized as Technology Equities, while HDV is Dividend. They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for NBDS and 0.08% for HDV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 1.25), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.