FNDX vs. FNDB
Compare and contrast key facts about Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX) and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF (FNDB).
FNDX and FNDB are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FNDX is a passively managed fund by Charles Schwab that tracks the performance of the Russell Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index. It was launched on Aug 15, 2013. FNDB is a passively managed fund by Charles Schwab that tracks the performance of the Russell RAFI US. It was launched on Aug 8, 2013. Both FNDX and FNDB are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: FNDX or FNDB.
Key characteristics
| FNDX | FNDB | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 17.04% | 16.39% |
| 1Y Return | 30.19% | 29.88% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 11.26% | 11.78% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 17.00% | 17.09% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 13.77% | 14.15% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 2.94 | 2.83 |
| Sortino Ratio | 3.96 | 3.82 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.53 | 1.51 |
| Calmar Ratio | 4.89 | 4.86 |
| Martin Ratio | 18.78 | 17.97 |
| Ulcer Index | 1.68% | 1.75% |
| Daily Std Dev | 10.73% | 11.08% |
| Max Drawdown | -37.71% | -38.17% |
| Current Drawdown | -2.76% | -2.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between FNDX and FNDB is 0.98, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
FNDX vs. FNDB - Performance Comparison
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with FNDX having a 17.04% return and FNDB slightly lower at 16.39%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with FNDX having a 13.77% annualized return and FNDB not far ahead at 14.15%. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
FNDX vs. FNDB - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both FNDX and FNDB 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
FNDX vs. FNDB - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX) and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF (FNDB). 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.
Dividends
FNDX vs. FNDB - Dividend Comparison
FNDX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.52%, more than FNDB's 2.59% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FNDX Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF | 3.52% | 4.58% | 3.20% | 3.19% | 5.43% | 4.69% | 7.19% | 2.89% | 3.96% | 5.01% | 2.52% | 1.38% |
FNDB Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF | 2.59% | 2.69% | 3.91% | 3.11% | 4.42% | 5.71% | 5.96% | 4.83% | 3.12% | 3.43% | 4.03% | 1.45% |
Drawdowns
FNDX vs. FNDB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FNDX drawdown since its inception was -37.71%, roughly equal to the maximum FNDB drawdown of -38.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNDX and FNDB. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
FNDX vs. FNDB - Volatility Comparison
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX) and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF (FNDB) have volatilities of 2.56% and 2.62%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.