AESB vs NTKI

AESB vs NTKI

Which is better, AESB or NTKI?

AESB costs less.

AESB has a lower expense ratio.

Lower Fees: AESB

MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.

Side-by-Side Comparison

MetricAESBNTKI
Expense Ratio0.38%Best0.70%
AUM$2M$12M
Dividend Yield0.00%6.01%
Holdings33113
Volatility (annualized)-11.2%
Max Drawdown--19.9%
Fund FamilyHarbor FundsNationwide
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleSmall Cap BlendSmall Cap Blend
InceptionAug 26, 2026Dec 16, 2021

Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), $10,000 over the window, Top 10 Weight.

The two price series end 712 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. AESB has data through Oct 14, 2026 and NTKI through Nov 1, 2024.

Compare AESB against instead:AESB vs SPYAESB vs QQQAESB vs VOOAESB vs VTINTKI against:NTKI vs VXUS

Fees and Cost Over Time

AESB charges 0.38% per year while NTKI charges 0.70%. On a $10,000 position that is $38 vs $70 annually, a gap of $32 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AESB currently yields 0.00% against 6.01% for NTKI.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of AESB and NTKI you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

AESBNTKI

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, AESB or NTKI?

AESB has an expense ratio of 0.38% while NTKI charges 0.70%. AESB is the cheaper option, by $32 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which pays a higher dividend, AESB or NTKI?

AESB yields 0.00% while NTKI yields 6.01%, so NTKI currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is NTKI better than AESB?

AESB has a lower expense ratio. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.