PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FNDF vs. EFAS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FNDF vs. EFAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF (FNDF) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNDF achieves a 16.43% return, which is significantly higher than EFAS's 12.32% return.


FNDF

1D
-2.61%
1M
-1.37%
YTD
16.43%
6M
16.74%
1Y
39.04%
3Y*
22.45%
5Y*
12.99%
10Y*
12.17%

EFAS

1D
-0.28%
1M
-2.81%
YTD
12.32%
6M
12.80%
1Y
26.33%
3Y*
24.76%
5Y*
12.16%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FNDF vs. EFAS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FNDF
Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF
16.43%40.99%2.29%20.22%-7.78%14.97%3.61%18.46%-14.21%23.98%
EFAS
Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF
12.32%46.83%3.07%14.65%-8.00%12.75%-5.42%14.60%-11.60%22.76%

Correlation

The correlation between FNDF and EFAS is 0.66, 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

0.66

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

0.74

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

0.79

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2016

0.77

The correlation between FNDF and EFAS shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (1 year) to 0.79 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNDF vs. EFAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FNDF
EFAS

Financial Services

16.2%
31.0%

Industrials

15.5%
10.4%

Technology

14.4%
0.1%

Basic Materials

11.3%
1.7%

Energy

10.9%
13.1%

Consumer Cyclical

10.8%
1.9%

Consumer Defensive

6.5%
8.1%

Healthcare

5.2%
0.1%

Communication Services

4.9%
8.6%

Utilities

3.5%
13.7%

Real Estate

0.8%
11.4%

Financial Services

FNDF
16.2%
EFAS
31.0%

Industrials

FNDF
15.5%
EFAS
10.4%

Technology

FNDF
14.4%
EFAS
0.1%

Basic Materials

FNDF
11.3%
EFAS
1.7%

Energy

FNDF
10.9%
EFAS
13.1%

Consumer Cyclical

FNDF
10.8%
EFAS
1.9%

Consumer Defensive

FNDF
6.5%
EFAS
8.1%

Healthcare

FNDF
5.2%
EFAS
0.1%

Communication Services

FNDF
4.9%
EFAS
8.6%

Utilities

FNDF
3.5%
EFAS
13.7%

Real Estate

FNDF
0.8%
EFAS
11.4%

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

FNDF vs. EFAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNDF
FNDF Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
FNDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FNDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
FNDF Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
FNDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
FNDF Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank

EFAS
EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8181
Sortino Ratio Rank
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
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.

FNDF vs. EFAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF (FNDF) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). 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.


FNDFEFASDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.25

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.42

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.70

4.99

-1.29

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.74

12.82

+0.92

FNDF vs. EFAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNDF Sharpe Ratio is 2.43, which is comparable to the EFAS Sharpe Ratio of 2.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNDF and EFAS, 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...

Drawdowns

FNDF vs. EFAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNDF drawdown since its inception was -40.14%, smaller than the maximum EFAS drawdown of -44.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNDF and EFAS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FNDFEFASDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-40.14%

-44.38%

+4.24%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.60%

-5.30%

-5.30%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.89%

-11.84%

-2.05%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.56%

-28.81%

+3.25%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.14%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.59%

-3.56%

-1.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.62%

-7.05%

-0.57%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.85%

2.06%

+0.79%

Volatility

FNDF vs. EFAS - Volatility Comparison

Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF (FNDF) has a higher volatility of 6.77% compared to Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) at 3.52%. This indicates that FNDF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FNDFEFASDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.77%

3.52%

+3.25%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.93%

8.69%

+5.24%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.16%

10.95%

+5.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.36%

15.59%

+0.77%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.47%

18.31%

-0.84%

FNDF vs. EFAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNDF has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than EFAS's 0.56% expense ratio.


Dividends

FNDF vs. EFAS - Dividend Comparison

FNDF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.95%, less than EFAS's 4.75% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EFAS
Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF
4.75%4.83%6.76%6.33%7.28%5.19%4.34%5.75%6.63%6.15%0.21%0.00%
FNDF
Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF
2.95%3.44%4.01%3.41%3.10%3.54%2.17%3.20%3.47%2.32%2.42%2.08%

Frequently Asked Questions


FNDF and EFAS have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FNDF has higher volatility (6.77%) compared to EFAS (3.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNDF dropped -40.14% vs EFAS's -44.38%.

On 5-year performance, FNDF leads with 12.99% vs 12.16% for EFAS. On fees, FNDF is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, EFAS has been the lower-risk option at 3.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FNDF has performed better with a 12.99% return vs 12.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FNDF is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for EFAS.

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 4.75%, compared with 2.95% for FNDF.

FNDF tracks RAFI Fundamental High Liquidity Developed ex US Large Index (Net), while EFAS tracks MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index. They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for FNDF and 0.56% for EFAS.

FNDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.43 vs 2.42), 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 FNDF and EFAS

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