FDWM vs TCAL
Fidelity Womens Leadership ETF vs T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Premium Income ETF
Which is better, FDWM or TCAL?
FDWM has been ahead.
TCAL has a lower expense ratio. FDWM led over 1Y. TCAL is less concentrated, with 17.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.7%.
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
| Metric | FDWM | TCAL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.59% | 0.34%Best |
| AUM | $5M | $311M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.52% | 11.81% |
| Holdings | 82 | 488 |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.7% | 17.0%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | T.Rowe Price |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 15, 2021 | Mar 26, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
The two price series end 335 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. FDWM has data through Nov 13, 2025 and TCAL through Oct 14, 2026.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FDWM charges 0.59% per year while TCAL charges 0.34%. On a $10,000 position that is $59 vs $34 annually, a gap of $25 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FDWM currently yields 0.52% against 11.81% for TCAL.
Holdings Overlap
36.7% of FDWM's money is in holdings TCAL also owns. 22.0% of TCAL's money is in holdings FDWM also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
The two holdings books were reported 411 days apart, FDWM as of Jul 31, 2025 and TCAL as of Sep 15, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
20 positions in common, counted across the 86 positions we hold weights for in FDWM and 103 in TCAL, against full books of 82 and 488.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 78 positions for TCAL that do not appear in our book for FDWM (73.1% of the fund), and 64 for FDWM that do not appear in TCAL (60.4%).
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
| Stock | Weight in FDWM | Weight in TCAL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 7.10% | 1.94% | 5.16% |
| NVDANVIDIA Corporation | 7.02% | 1.28% | 5.74% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.73% | 1.67% | 3.06% |
| MAMastercard Inc. Cl A | 1.32% | 1.79% | 0.47% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase & Co | 2.12% | 0.86% | 1.26% |
| ALNYAlnylam Pharmac.. | 1.42% | 1.17% | 0.25% |
| TMOThermo Fisher Scientific Inc | 1.15% | 1.31% | 0.16% |
| GILDGilead Sciences Inc | 1.12% | 1.32% | 0.20% |
| ANETArista Networks Inccommon Stock | 1.18% | 1.21% | 0.03% |
| VLTOVeralto Corp | 0.42% | 1.83% | 1.41% |
36.7% of FDWM is already inside TCAL.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FDWM or TCAL?
FDWM has an expense ratio of 0.59% while TCAL charges 0.34%. TCAL is the cheaper option, by $25 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between FDWM and TCAL?
36.7% of FDWM's money is in holdings TCAL also owns. 22.0% of TCAL's is in holdings FDWM also owns. They hold 20 positions in common, counted across the 86 positions we hold weights for in FDWM and 103 in TCAL.
Which pays a higher dividend, FDWM or TCAL?
FDWM yields 0.52% while TCAL yields 11.81%, so TCAL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TCAL better than FDWM?
TCAL has a lower expense ratio. FDWM led over 1Y. TCAL is less concentrated, with 17.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.