FNDX vs LVDS
Schwab Fundamental US Large Company ETF vs JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Large Value ETF
Which is better, FNDX or LVDS?
Each has led over a different period.
FNDX has a lower expense ratio. FNDX led over the full window, LVDS over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. FNDX is less concentrated, with 22.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 30.3%.
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 | FNDX | LVDS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.25%Best | 0.30% |
| AUM | $28.0B | $114M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.50% | 7.56% |
| Holdings | 736 | 133 |
| YTD Return | +19.26% | +20.52%Best |
| 1Y Return | +25.57% | +25.95%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.97% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.81% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.6%Best | 10.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -6.1%Best | -6.6% |
| $10,000 over 1.3 years | $13,403Best | $13,088 |
| Top 10 Weight | 22.3%Best | 30.3% |
| Fund Family | Charles Schwab Asset Management | J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Aug 15, 2013 | Jul 11, 2025 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 14, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.3 years).
FNDX vs LVDS 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 1.3 years both funds cover.
FNDX vs LVDS Performance
Schwab Fundamental US Large Company ETF (FNDX) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management and JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Large Value ETF (LVDS) is an ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Over the past year FNDX returned +25.57% while LVDS returned +25.95%. Year to date, FNDX is up 19.26% versus a gain of 20.52% for LVDS.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LVDS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 10.6% compared with 9.6% for FNDX. 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 -6.1% for FNDX and -6.6% for LVDS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FNDX charges 0.25% per year while LVDS charges 0.30%. On a $10,000 position that is $25 vs $30 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FNDX currently yields 1.50% against 7.56% for LVDS.
Holdings Overlap
47.5% of FNDX's money is in holdings LVDS also owns. 97.6% of LVDS's money is in holdings FNDX also owns.
Most of LVDS is already inside FNDX. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
127 positions in common, counted across the 733 positions we hold weights for in FNDX and 131 in LVDS, against full books of 736 and 133.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 4 positions for LVDS that do not appear in our book for FNDX (1.7% of the fund), and 588 for FNDX that do not appear in LVDS (51.5%).
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 FNDX | Weight in LVDS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.82% | 5.39% | 0.57% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.20% | 5.92% | 2.72% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 1.93% | 6.39% | 4.46% |
| XOMExxonmobil Corp. | 2.37% | 2.46% | 0.09% |
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 1.74% | 1.74% | 0.00% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.84% | 1.29% | 0.55% |
| VZVerizon Communic | 0.93% | 1.82% | 0.89% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.67% | 1.93% | 1.26% |
| UNHUnitedhealth Group Incorporated | 1.35% | 1.13% | 0.22% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.99% | 1.45% | 0.46% |
97.6% of LVDS is already inside FNDX.
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, FNDX or LVDS?
FNDX has an expense ratio of 0.25% while LVDS charges 0.30%. FNDX is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FNDX or LVDS?
Over the past year FNDX returned +25.57% vs +25.95% for LVDS, so LVDS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), FNDX annualized +25.27% vs +23.00% for LVDS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FNDX or LVDS?
LVDS has been the more volatile fund at 10.6% annualized versus 9.6% for FNDX. Worst drawdown: FNDX -6.1% vs LVDS -6.6%.
Should I hold both FNDX and LVDS?
FNDX and LVDS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FNDX and LVDS?
97.6% of LVDS's money is in holdings FNDX also owns. 97.6% of LVDS's is in holdings FNDX also owns. They hold 127 positions in common, counted across the 733 positions we hold weights for in FNDX and 131 in LVDS.
Which pays a higher dividend, FNDX or LVDS?
FNDX yields 1.50% while LVDS yields 7.56%, so LVDS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LVDS better than FNDX?
FNDX has a lower expense ratio. FNDX led over the full window, LVDS over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. FNDX is less concentrated, with 22.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 30.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.