BLUX vs. FNDX

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BLUX (Bluemonte Dynamic Total Market ETF) and FNDX (Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BLUX is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund managed by Bluemonte, while FNDX is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the RAFI Fundamental High Liquidity US Large Index. Over the past year, BLUX returned 26.50% vs 30.33% for FNDX. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.25% expense ratio.

Performance

BLUX vs. FNDX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bluemonte Dynamic Total Market ETF (BLUX) and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BLUX achieves a 13.12% return, which is significantly lower than FNDX's 14.31% return.

BLUX

• 1D: -0.95%
• 1M: 1.21%
• YTD: 13.12%
• 6M: 11.59%
• 1Y: 26.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FNDX

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: 0.52%
• YTD: 14.31%
• 6M: 13.73%
• 1Y: 30.33%
• 3Y*: 20.33%
• 5Y*: 13.24%
• 10Y*: 14.48%

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

BLUX vs. FNDX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BLUX Bluemonte Dynamic Total Market ETF	13.12%	12.62%
FNDX Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF	14.31%	14.82%

Correlation

The correlation between BLUX and FNDX is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2025	0.90

The correlation between BLUX and FNDX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

BLUX vs. FNDX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BLUX	FNDX
Technology	26.7%	22.1%
Financial Services	14.1%	13.3%
Industrials	12.0%	9.1%
Healthcare	11.6%	11.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	9.1%
Communication Services	6.6%	9.9%
Real Estate	4.8%	1.7%
Energy	4.6%	9.3%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	7.0%
Basic Materials	3.4%	3.6%
Utilities	2.6%	3.0%

Return for Risk

BLUX vs. FNDX — Risk / Return Rank

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

BLUX

BLUX Risk / Return Rank: 64
BLUX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
BLUX Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
BLUX Omega Ratio Rank: 59
BLUX Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
BLUX Martin Ratio Rank: 72

FNDX

FNDX Risk / Return Rank: 89
FNDX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FNDX Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
FNDX Omega Ratio Rank: 89
FNDX Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
FNDX Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

BLUX vs. FNDX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bluemonte Dynamic Total Market ETF (BLUX) and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX). 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.

	BLUX	FNDX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	2.92	-1.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	4.05	-1.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.53	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.95	5.02	-2.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.23	19.42	-7.19

BLUX vs. FNDX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BLUX Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is lower than the FNDX Sharpe Ratio of 2.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BLUX and FNDX, 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

BLUX vs. FNDX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLUX drawdown since its inception was -9.03%, smaller than the maximum FNDX drawdown of -37.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLUX and FNDX.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLUX	FNDX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.03%	-37.72%	+28.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.03%	-6.06%	-2.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.30%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.06%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.72%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.12%	-1.43%	+0.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.31%	-3.55%	+2.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.17%	1.57%	+0.60%

Volatility

BLUX vs. FNDX - Volatility Comparison

Bluemonte Dynamic Total Market ETF (BLUX) has a higher volatility of 4.84% compared to Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX) at 3.33%. This indicates that BLUX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNDX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BLUX	FNDX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.84%	3.33%	+1.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.93%	7.63%	+3.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.24%	10.47%	+3.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.24%	15.18%	-0.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.24%	17.48%	-3.24%

BLUX vs. FNDX - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BLUX and FNDX have an expense ratio of 0.25%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

BLUX vs. FNDX - Dividend Comparison

BLUX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.84%, less than FNDX's 1.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BLUX Bluemonte Dynamic Total Market ETF	0.84%	0.73%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FNDX Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF	1.45%	1.63%	1.76%	1.82%	2.07%	1.64%	2.29%	2.23%	2.40%	1.86%	2.01%	2.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BLUX and FNDX in my portfolio?

BLUX and FNDX have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BLUX or FNDX?

BLUX has higher volatility (4.84%) compared to FNDX (3.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLUX dropped -9.03% vs FNDX's -37.72%.

Which ETF is better, BLUX or FNDX?

On 1-year performance, FNDX leads with 30.33% vs 26.50% for BLUX. Both ETFs have the same 0.25% expense ratio. On volatility, FNDX has been the lower-risk option at 3.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BLUX or FNDX?

Over the 1-year period, FNDX has performed better with a 30.33% return vs 26.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLUX or FNDX?

BLUX and FNDX have the same expense ratio: 0.25% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BLUX or FNDX?

FNDX has the higher dividend yield at 1.45%, compared with 0.84% for BLUX.

What is the main difference between BLUX and FNDX?

BLUX is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while FNDX is Large Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: Bluemonte and Charles Schwab.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNDX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.92 vs 1.87), 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.