PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FNDB vs. MGC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FNDB vs. MGC - 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 Vanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNDB achieves a 14.63% return, which is significantly higher than MGC's 11.69% return. Over the past 10 years, FNDB has underperformed MGC with an annualized return of 14.04%, while MGC has yielded a comparatively higher 16.46% annualized return.


FNDB

1D
0.50%
1M
3.23%
YTD
14.63%
6M
15.52%
1Y
33.19%
3Y*
20.60%
5Y*
12.51%
10Y*
14.04%

MGC

1D
0.08%
1M
6.06%
YTD
11.69%
6M
11.94%
1Y
31.42%
3Y*
24.19%
5Y*
15.10%
10Y*
16.46%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FNDB vs. MGC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FNDB
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF
14.63%16.23%16.25%18.42%-7.53%31.55%9.40%28.88%-8.20%16.94%
MGC
Vanguard Mega Cap ETF
11.69%19.31%27.16%29.77%-19.95%27.58%21.57%31.14%-3.45%22.61%

Correlation

The correlation between FNDB and MGC is 0.73, 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

0.73

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

0.78

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

0.84

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

0.85

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

0.87

The correlation between FNDB and MGC shifts across timeframes, from 0.73 (1 year) to 0.87 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNDB vs. MGC - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FNDB
MGC

Technology

18.8%
39.3%

Financial Services

14.1%
11.7%

Healthcare

11.6%
8.9%

Industrials

10.0%
6.5%

Energy

10.0%
2.6%

Communication Services

9.7%
13.1%

Consumer Cyclical

9.4%
10.1%

Consumer Defensive

7.2%
4.8%

Basic Materials

3.8%
1.2%

Utilities

3.1%
1.0%

Real Estate

2.4%
1.0%

Technology

FNDB
18.8%
MGC
39.3%

Financial Services

FNDB
14.1%
MGC
11.7%

Healthcare

FNDB
11.6%
MGC
8.9%

Industrials

FNDB
10.0%
MGC
6.5%

Energy

FNDB
10.0%
MGC
2.6%

Communication Services

FNDB
9.7%
MGC
13.1%

Consumer Cyclical

FNDB
9.4%
MGC
10.1%

Consumer Defensive

FNDB
7.2%
MGC
4.8%

Basic Materials

FNDB
3.8%
MGC
1.2%

Utilities

FNDB
3.1%
MGC
1.0%

Real Estate

FNDB
2.4%
MGC
1.0%

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

FNDB vs. MGC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNDB
FNDB Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
FNDB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FNDB Sortino Ratio Rank: 9191
Sortino Ratio Rank
FNDB Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
FNDB Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
FNDB Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
Martin Ratio Rank

MGC
MGC Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
MGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
MGC Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
MGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
MGC Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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.

FNDB vs. MGC - 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 Vanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC). 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.


FNDBMGCDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

3.11

2.57

+0.54

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

4.34

3.48

+0.86

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.57

1.46

+0.11

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

5.32

3.27

+2.05

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

20.48

14.72

+5.76

FNDB vs. MGC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNDB Sharpe Ratio is 3.11, which is comparable to the MGC Sharpe Ratio of 2.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNDB and MGC, 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


FNDBMGCDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.11

2.57

+0.54

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.82

0.88

-0.06

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.81

0.91

-0.10

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.79

0.60

+0.18

Drawdowns

FNDB vs. MGC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNDB drawdown since its inception was -38.17%, smaller than the maximum MGC drawdown of -51.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNDB and MGC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FNDBMGCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.17%

-51.93%

+13.76%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.29%

-9.85%

+3.56%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.83%

-19.28%

+2.45%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.29%

-25.74%

+6.45%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.17%

-33.07%

-5.10%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.66%

-7.06%

+3.40%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.63%

2.19%

-0.56%

Volatility

FNDB vs. MGC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF (FNDB) is 2.51%, while Vanguard Mega Cap ETF (MGC) has a volatility of 2.91%. This indicates that FNDB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MGC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FNDBMGCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.51%

2.91%

-0.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.62%

9.24%

-1.62%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.72%

12.29%

-1.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.36%

17.26%

-1.90%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.48%

18.21%

-0.73%

FNDB vs. MGC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNDB has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than MGC's 0.05% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

FNDB vs. MGC - Dividend Comparison

FNDB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, more than MGC's 0.86% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
MGC
Vanguard Mega Cap ETF
0.86%0.93%1.15%1.35%1.65%1.17%1.45%1.81%2.10%1.83%2.14%2.11%

Frequently Asked Questions


FNDB and MGC have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MGC has higher volatility (2.91%) compared to FNDB (2.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNDB dropped -38.17% vs MGC's -51.93%.

On 10-year performance, MGC leads with 16.46% vs 14.04% for FNDB. On fees, MGC is cheaper at 0.05% per year. On volatility, FNDB has been the lower-risk option at 2.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, MGC has performed better with a 16.46% return vs 14.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

MGC is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for FNDB.

FNDB has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 0.86% for MGC.

FNDB is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while MGC is Large Cap Blend Equities. FNDB tracks RAFI Fundamental High Liquidity US All Index, while MGC tracks CRSP US Mega Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for FNDB and 0.05% for MGC.

FNDB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.11 vs 2.57), 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 FNDB and MGC

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