PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FNDA vs. RZV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FNDA vs. RZV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Schwab Fundamental US Small Co. Index ETF (FNDA) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF (RZV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNDA achieves a 14.40% return, which is significantly lower than RZV's 18.85% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with FNDA having a 10.81% annualized return and RZV not far behind at 10.69%.


FNDA

1D
0.64%
1M
-0.11%
YTD
14.40%
6M
14.29%
1Y
29.17%
3Y*
14.87%
5Y*
6.73%
10Y*
10.81%

RZV

1D
1.10%
1M
2.21%
YTD
18.85%
6M
17.91%
1Y
42.90%
3Y*
17.12%
5Y*
8.77%
10Y*
10.69%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FNDA vs. RZV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FNDA
Schwab Fundamental US Small Co. Index ETF
14.40%7.44%9.00%20.29%-14.83%31.12%8.44%24.34%-12.12%12.68%
RZV
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF
18.85%8.65%5.06%22.97%-6.80%45.95%-3.88%22.29%-19.66%1.25%

Correlation

The correlation between FNDA and RZV is 0.92, 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

0.92

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.93

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.94

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.93

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 16, 2013

0.93

The correlation between FNDA and RZV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNDA vs. RZV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FNDA
RZV

Industrials

18.9%
15.7%

Technology

14.9%
8.9%

Financial Services

14.6%
7.3%

Consumer Cyclical

12.2%
26.1%

Real Estate

9.9%
5.0%

Healthcare

6.8%
8.8%

Energy

6.2%
9.7%

Basic Materials

5.2%
6.4%

Consumer Defensive

4.2%
7.7%

Communication Services

4.1%
4.2%

Utilities

2.8%
0.4%

Industrials

FNDA
18.9%
RZV
15.7%

Technology

FNDA
14.9%
RZV
8.9%

Financial Services

FNDA
14.6%
RZV
7.3%

Consumer Cyclical

FNDA
12.2%
RZV
26.1%

Real Estate

FNDA
9.9%
RZV
5.0%

Healthcare

FNDA
6.8%
RZV
8.8%

Energy

FNDA
6.2%
RZV
9.7%

Basic Materials

FNDA
5.2%
RZV
6.4%

Consumer Defensive

FNDA
4.2%
RZV
7.7%

Communication Services

FNDA
4.1%
RZV
4.2%

Utilities

FNDA
2.8%
RZV
0.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

FNDA vs. RZV — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNDA
FNDA Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
FNDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FNDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
FNDA Omega Ratio Rank: 5252
Omega Ratio Rank
FNDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 6969
Calmar Ratio Rank
FNDA Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank

RZV
RZV Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
RZV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RZV Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
RZV Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
RZV Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
RZV Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FNDA vs. RZV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab Fundamental US Small Co. Index ETF (FNDA) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF (RZV). 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.


FNDARZVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.38

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.48

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.35

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.13

3.43

-0.30

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.09

11.17

-1.07

FNDA vs. RZV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNDA Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is comparable to the RZV Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNDA and RZV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FNDARZVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.70

2.08

-0.38

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.32

0.36

-0.04

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

0.40

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.49

0.27

+0.22

Drawdowns

FNDA vs. RZV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNDA drawdown since its inception was -44.64%, smaller than the maximum RZV drawdown of -77.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNDA and RZV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FNDARZVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.64%

-77.11%

+32.47%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.36%

-12.56%

+3.20%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.92%

-29.81%

+3.89%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.92%

-29.81%

+3.89%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.64%

-60.42%

+15.78%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.42%

-0.39%

-1.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.69%

-13.60%

+6.91%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.90%

3.85%

-0.95%

Volatility

FNDA vs. RZV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Schwab Fundamental US Small Co. Index ETF (FNDA) is 4.61%, while Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF (RZV) has a volatility of 5.51%. This indicates that FNDA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RZV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FNDARZVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.61%

5.51%

-0.90%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.98%

13.82%

-1.84%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.24%

20.75%

-3.51%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.91%

24.38%

-3.47%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.39%

27.03%

-4.64%

FNDA vs. RZV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNDA has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than RZV's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

FNDA vs. RZV - Dividend Comparison

FNDA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.09%, less than RZV's 1.34% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FNDA
Schwab Fundamental US Small Co. Index ETF
1.09%1.22%1.53%1.37%1.38%1.15%1.31%1.38%1.64%1.30%1.18%1.33%
RZV
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Value ETF
1.34%1.59%1.14%1.13%1.43%0.86%0.63%1.03%2.03%1.02%0.46%1.24%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.92, FNDA and RZV move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

RZV has higher volatility (5.51%) compared to FNDA (4.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNDA dropped -44.64% vs RZV's -77.11%.

On 10-year performance, FNDA leads with 10.81% vs 10.69% for RZV. On fees, FNDA is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, FNDA has been the lower-risk option at 4.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FNDA has performed better with a 10.81% return vs 10.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FNDA is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RZV.

RZV has the higher dividend yield at 1.34%, compared with 1.09% for FNDA.

FNDA is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while RZV is Small Cap Value Equities. FNDA tracks Russell RAFI Small Company US, while RZV tracks S&P Small Cap 600 Pure Value. They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for FNDA and 0.35% for RZV.

RZV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 1.70), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FNDA and RZV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer