FFLC vs SCHV
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF vs Schwab US Large-Cap Value ETF
Which is better, FFLC or SCHV?
Each has led over a different period.
SCHV has a lower expense ratio. FFLC led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, SCHV over 1Y. SCHV is less concentrated, with 20.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.9%.
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 | FFLC | SCHV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.38% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $1.2B | $15.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.01% | 1.88% |
| Holdings | 216 | 560 |
| YTD Return | +9.90% | +15.04%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.13% | +19.24%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.06%Best | +19.07% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.97%Best | +10.35% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.8% | 14.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -19.7%Best | -19.8% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $20,976Best | $16,363 |
| Top 10 Weight | 41.9% | 20.0%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | Charles Schwab Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Jun 2, 2020 | Dec 11, 2009 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 4, 2020 to Oct 14, 2026 (6.4 years).
FFLC vs SCHV 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 covers the 6.4 years both funds cover.
FFLC vs SCHV Performance
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and Schwab US Large-Cap Value ETF (SCHV) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management. Over the past year FFLC returned +14.13% while SCHV returned +19.24%. Year to date, FFLC is up 9.90% versus a gain of 15.04% for SCHV.
Over three years, FFLC compounded at +22.06% per year against +19.07% for SCHV; over five years the annualized figures are +15.97% and +10.35% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, FFLC has the edge at +19.16% annualized vs +13.14%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FFLC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 14.8% for SCHV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -19.7% for FFLC and -19.8% for SCHV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FFLC charges 0.38% per year while SCHV charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $38 vs $4 annually, a gap of $34 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FFLC currently yields 1.01% against 1.88% for SCHV.
Holdings Overlap
35.0% of FFLC's money is in holdings SCHV also owns. 24.1% of SCHV's money is in holdings FFLC also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
62 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in FFLC and 567 in SCHV, against full books of 216 and 560.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 495 positions for SCHV that do not appear in our book for FFLC (75.1% of the fund), and 35 for FFLC that do not appear in SCHV (57.0%).
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 FFLC | Weight in SCHV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| XOMExxonmobil Corp. | 2.06% | 2.28% | 0.22% |
| BACBank Of America Corp. | 1.65% | 1.18% | 0.47% |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co. | 1.62% | 0.82% | 0.80% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.25% | 2.09% | 1.84% |
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 0.67% | 1.20% | 0.53% |
| KOCoca Cola Co. | 0.73% | 1.12% | 0.39% |
| HDHome Depot Inc/The | 0.75% | 0.95% | 0.20% |
| PMPhilip Morris International Inc. | 0.70% | 0.99% | 0.29% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 0.16% | 1.47% | 1.31% |
| APHAmphenol Corp. Class A | 0.81% | 0.73% | 0.08% |
35.0% of FFLC is already inside SCHV.
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, FFLC or SCHV?
FFLC has an expense ratio of 0.38% while SCHV charges 0.04%. SCHV is the cheaper option, by $34 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FFLC or SCHV?
Over the past year FFLC returned +14.13% vs +19.24% for SCHV, so SCHV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FFLC annualized +19.16% vs +13.14% for SCHV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FFLC or SCHV?
FFLC has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 14.8% for SCHV. Worst drawdown: FFLC -19.7% vs SCHV -19.8%.
Should I hold both FFLC and SCHV?
FFLC and SCHV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FFLC and SCHV?
35.0% of FFLC's money is in holdings SCHV also owns. 24.1% of SCHV's is in holdings FFLC also owns. They hold 62 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in FFLC and 567 in SCHV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FFLC or SCHV?
FFLC yields 1.01% while SCHV yields 1.88%, so SCHV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCHV better than FFLC?
SCHV has a lower expense ratio. FFLC led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, SCHV over 1Y. SCHV is less concentrated, with 20.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.