FNDB vs. BGIG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FNDB (Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF) and BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. FNDB is passively managed, while BGIG is actively managed. Over the past year, FNDB returned 30.50% vs 19.97% for BGIG. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FNDB charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for BGIG.

Performance

FNDB vs. BGIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF (FNDB) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNDB achieves a 14.40% return, which is significantly higher than BGIG's 10.12% return.

FNDB

• 1D: -0.46%
• 1M: 0.73%
• YTD: 14.40%
• 6M: 13.78%
• 1Y: 30.50%
• 3Y*: 20.08%
• 5Y*: 12.79%
• 10Y*: 14.26%

BGIG

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: -0.02%
• YTD: 10.12%
• 6M: 9.82%
• 1Y: 19.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FNDB vs. BGIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FNDB Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF	14.40%	16.23%	16.25%	6.99%
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	10.12%	12.49%	16.84%	3.57%

Correlation

The correlation between FNDB and BGIG is 0.79, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023	0.85

The correlation between FNDB and BGIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNDB vs. BGIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNDB	BGIG
Technology	20.8%	25.7%
Financial Services	12.7%	14.4%
Healthcare	11.9%	15.2%
Industrials	10.0%	10.3%
Energy	9.3%	10.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	4.8%
Communication Services	8.9%	0.8%
Consumer Defensive	6.9%	6.8%
Basic Materials	3.7%	0.6%
Utilities	3.0%	7.2%
Real Estate	2.2%	3.8%

Return for Risk

FNDB vs. BGIG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNDB

FNDB Risk / Return Rank: 88
FNDB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
FNDB Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
FNDB Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FNDB Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FNDB Martin Ratio Rank: 88

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 76
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 73
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

FNDB vs. BGIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF (FNDB) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). 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.

	FNDB	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.80	2.22	+0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.89	3.18	+0.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.40	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.87	3.45	+1.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.52	13.32	+5.20

FNDB vs. BGIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNDB Sharpe Ratio is 2.80, which is comparable to the BGIG Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNDB and BGIG, 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

FNDB vs. BGIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNDB drawdown since its inception was -38.17%, which is greater than BGIG's maximum drawdown of -13.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNDB and BGIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNDB	BGIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.17%	-13.24%	-24.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.29%	-5.81%	-0.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.83%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.17%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.46%	-0.65%	-0.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.65%	-1.75%	-1.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.65%	1.50%	+0.15%

Volatility

FNDB vs. BGIG - Volatility Comparison

Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF (FNDB) has a higher volatility of 3.38% compared to Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) at 2.46%. This indicates that FNDB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNDB	BGIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.38%	2.46%	+0.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.98%	6.74%	+1.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.96%	9.05%	+1.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.35%	11.90%	+3.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.46%	11.90%	+5.56%

FNDB vs. BGIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNDB has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than BGIG's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNDB vs. BGIG - Dividend Comparison

FNDB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, less than BGIG's 1.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.74%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FNDB Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF	1.44%	1.62%	1.74%	1.80%	1.98%	1.63%	2.15%	2.23%	2.41%	1.91%	2.06%	2.26%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNDB and BGIG in my portfolio?

FNDB and BGIG have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNDB or BGIG?

FNDB has higher volatility (3.38%) compared to BGIG (2.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNDB dropped -38.17% vs BGIG's -13.24%.

Which ETF is better, FNDB or BGIG?

On 1-year performance, FNDB leads with 30.50% vs 19.97% for BGIG. On fees, FNDB is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNDB or BGIG?

Over the 1-year period, FNDB has performed better with a 30.50% return vs 19.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNDB or BGIG?

FNDB is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for BGIG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FNDB or BGIG?

BGIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 1.44% for FNDB.

What is the main difference between FNDB and BGIG?

They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and Bahl & Gaynor. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for FNDB and 0.45% for BGIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNDB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 2.22), 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.