ANTW vs FMAG

ANTW vs FMAG

Which is better, ANTW or FMAG?

FMAG costs less.

FMAG has a lower expense ratio. FMAG is less concentrated, with 44.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.5%.

Lower Fees: FMAGLess Concentrated: FMAG

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

MetricANTWFMAG
Expense Ratio0.59%0.57%Best
AUM$24M$243M
Dividend Yield0.00%0.00%
Holdings2552
YTD Return-8.09%+4.66%Best
1Y Return-+3.01%
3Y Return (annualized)-+17.63%
5Y Return (annualized)-+9.04%
Top 10 Weight55.5%44.0%Best
Fund FamilyHarbor FundsFidelity Investments (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap GrowthLarge Cap Growth
InceptionAug 12, 2026Feb 2, 2021

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

ANTW vs FMAG growth

Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

Compare ANTW against instead:ANTW vs SPYANTW vs QQQANTW vs VOOANTW vs VTIFMAG against:FMAG vs VXUS

ANTW vs FMAG Performance

Anthropic AI Lab Ecosystem ETF (ANTW) is an ETF from Harbor Funds and Fidelity Magellan ETF (FMAG) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US). Year to date, ANTW is down 8.09% versus a gain of 4.66% for FMAG.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

ANTW charges 0.59% per year while FMAG charges 0.57%. On a $10,000 position that is $59 vs $57 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ANTW currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for FMAG.

Holdings Overlap

ANTW already in FMAG32.8%
FMAG already in ANTW35.9%

32.8% of ANTW's money is in holdings FMAG also owns. 35.9% of FMAG's money is in holdings ANTW also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

7 positions in common, counted across the 25 positions we hold weights for in ANTW and 50 in FMAG, against full books of 25 and 52.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 43 positions for FMAG that do not appear in our book for ANTW (63.5% of the fund), and 17 for ANTW that do not appear in FMAG (63.2%).

Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.

Top Shared Holdings

StockWeight in ANTWWeight in FMAGDifference
NVDANvidia Corp3.03%10.24%7.21%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc5.80%6.45%0.65%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc7.22%3.87%3.35%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp5.13%5.61%0.48%
AVGOBroadcom Inc5.30%4.55%0.75%
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc3.70%3.14%0.56%
2330:TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd2.65%2.01%0.64%

35.9% of FMAG is already inside ANTW.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

ANTWFMAG

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, ANTW or FMAG?

ANTW has an expense ratio of 0.59% while FMAG charges 0.57%. FMAG is the cheaper option, by $2 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between ANTW and FMAG?

35.9% of FMAG's money is in holdings ANTW also owns. 35.9% of FMAG's is in holdings ANTW also owns. They hold 7 positions in common, counted across the 25 positions we hold weights for in ANTW and 50 in FMAG.

Which pays a higher dividend, ANTW or FMAG?

ANTW yields 0.00% while FMAG yields 0.00%, so FMAG currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is FMAG better than ANTW?

FMAG has a lower expense ratio. FMAG is less concentrated, with 44.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.