OAKM vs. FNDX

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

OAKM (Oakmark U.S. Large Cap ETF) and FNDX (Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. OAKM is actively managed, while FNDX is passively managed. Over the past year, OAKM returned 16.15% vs 33.72% for FNDX. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. OAKM charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FNDX.

Performance

OAKM vs. FNDX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Oakmark U.S. Large Cap ETF (OAKM) and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, OAKM achieves a -0.14% return, which is significantly lower than FNDX's 15.35% return.

OAKM

• 1D: 1.91%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: -0.14%
• 6M: 2.57%
• 1Y: 16.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FNDX

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: 3.54%
• YTD: 15.35%
• 6M: 15.57%
• 1Y: 33.72%
• 3Y*: 21.32%
• 5Y*: 12.98%
• 10Y*: 14.27%

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

OAKM vs. FNDX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
OAKM Oakmark U.S. Large Cap ETF	-0.14%	21.46%	-4.83%
FNDX Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF	15.35%	16.94%	-4.68%

Correlation

The correlation between OAKM and FNDX 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 Dec 4, 2024	0.84

The correlation between OAKM and FNDX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

OAKM vs. FNDX — Risk / Return Rank

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

OAKM

OAKM Risk / Return Rank: 38
OAKM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
OAKM Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
OAKM Omega Ratio Rank: 34
OAKM Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
OAKM Martin Ratio Rank: 38

FNDX

FNDX Risk / Return Rank: 92
FNDX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
FNDX Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
FNDX Omega Ratio Rank: 92
FNDX Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
FNDX Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

OAKM vs. FNDX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Oakmark U.S. Large Cap ETF (OAKM) and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX). 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.

	OAKM	FNDX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.24	3.32	-2.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.84	4.64	-2.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.61	-0.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.26	5.59	-3.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.85	21.88	-16.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

OAKM vs. FNDX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current OAKM Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is lower than the FNDX Sharpe Ratio of 3.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of OAKM and FNDX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	OAKM	FNDX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.24	3.32	-2.08
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.86	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.82	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	0.80	-0.18

Drawdowns

OAKM vs. FNDX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum OAKM drawdown since its inception was -15.24%, smaller than the maximum FNDX drawdown of -37.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for OAKM and FNDX.

Drawdown Indicators

	OAKM	FNDX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.24%	-37.72%	+22.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.19%	-6.06%	-1.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.30%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.06%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-37.72%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.61%	0.00%	-2.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.77%	-3.55%	+0.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.77%	1.55%	+1.22%

Volatility

OAKM vs. FNDX - Volatility Comparison

Oakmark U.S. Large Cap ETF (OAKM) has a higher volatility of 3.63% compared to Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF (FNDX) at 2.15%. This indicates that OAKM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNDX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	OAKM	FNDX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.63%	2.15%	+1.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.56%	7.27%	+2.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.10%	10.22%	+2.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.55%	15.18%	+1.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.55%	17.50%	-0.95%

OAKM vs. FNDX - Expense Ratio Comparison

OAKM has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than FNDX's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

OAKM vs. FNDX - Dividend Comparison

OAKM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.67%, less than FNDX's 1.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FNDX Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company Index ETF	1.44%	1.63%	1.76%	1.82%	2.07%	1.64%	2.29%	2.23%	2.40%	1.86%	2.01%	2.01%
OAKM Oakmark U.S. Large Cap ETF	0.67%	0.67%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both OAKM and FNDX in my portfolio?

OAKM and FNDX 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, OAKM or FNDX?

OAKM has higher volatility (3.63%) compared to FNDX (2.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, OAKM dropped -15.24% vs FNDX's -37.72%.

Which ETF is better, OAKM or FNDX?

On 1-year performance, FNDX leads with 33.72% vs 16.15% for OAKM. On fees, FNDX is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, FNDX has been the lower-risk option at 2.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, OAKM or FNDX?

Over the 1-year period, FNDX has performed better with a 33.72% return vs 16.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, OAKM or FNDX?

FNDX is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for OAKM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, OAKM or FNDX?

FNDX has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 0.67% for OAKM.

What is the main difference between OAKM and FNDX?

They also come from different issuers: Oakmark and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for OAKM and 0.25% for FNDX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNDX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.32 vs 1.24), 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.