FNDX vs ULVM
Schwab Fundamental US Large Company ETF vs VictoryShares US Value Momentum ETF
Which is better, FNDX or ULVM?
Nearly the same fund. ULVM costs less.
ULVM has a lower expense ratio. FNDX led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. ULVM is less concentrated, with 13.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 22.3%.
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 | ULVM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.25% | 0.20%Best |
| AUM | $28.0B | $260M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.50% | 1.81% |
| Holdings | 736 | 126 |
| YTD Return | +19.26%Best | +13.74% |
| 1Y Return | +25.57%Best | +17.70% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.97%Best | +21.11% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.81%Best | +11.11% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.7%Best | 16.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -37.7%Best | -40.8% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,094Best | $16,934 |
| Top 10 Weight | 22.3% | 13.6%Best |
| Fund Family | Charles Schwab Asset Management | Victory Capital Management Inc. |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Aug 15, 2013 | Oct 24, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 26, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (9 years).
FNDX vs ULVM 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 9 years both funds cover.
FNDX vs ULVM Performance
Schwab Fundamental US Large Company ETF (FNDX) is an ETF from Charles Schwab Asset Management and VictoryShares US Value Momentum ETF (ULVM) is an ETF from Victory Capital Management Inc.. Over the past year FNDX returned +25.57% while ULVM returned +17.70%. Year to date, FNDX is up 19.26% versus a gain of 13.74% for ULVM.
Over three years, FNDX compounded at +21.97% per year against +21.11% for ULVM; over five years the annualized figures are +13.81% and +11.11% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, FNDX has the edge at +13.13% annualized vs +9.72%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ULVM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.9% compared with 16.7% 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 -37.7% for FNDX and -40.8% for ULVM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.98. 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 ULVM charges 0.20%. On a $10,000 position that is $25 vs $20 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FNDX currently yields 1.50% against 1.81% for ULVM.
Holdings Overlap
28.1% of FNDX's money is in holdings ULVM also owns. 93.1% of ULVM's money is in holdings FNDX also owns.
Most of ULVM is already inside FNDX. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
114 positions in common, counted across the 733 positions we hold weights for in FNDX and 125 in ULVM, against full books of 736 and 126.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 7 positions for ULVM that do not appear in our book for FNDX (4.1% of the fund), and 599 for FNDX that do not appear in ULVM (70.9%).
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 ULVM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRK.BBrk/B | 1.74% | 1.64% | 0.10% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc Cap Stk Cl A | 1.77% | 0.78% | 0.99% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.99% | 1.19% | 0.20% |
| UNHUnited Health Group Inc. | 1.35% | 0.64% | 0.71% |
| PFEPfizer, Inc. | 0.77% | 1.12% | 0.35% |
| BACBank Of America Corp. | 0.87% | 0.99% | 0.12% |
| VZVerizon Wireless | 0.93% | 0.86% | 0.07% |
| VLOValero Energy Corp. | 0.89% | 0.74% | 0.15% |
| MPCMarathon Petroleum Corp | 0.79% | 0.77% | 0.02% |
| INTCIntel Corporation | 1.14% | 0.42% | 0.72% |
93.1% of ULVM 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 ULVM?
FNDX has an expense ratio of 0.25% while ULVM charges 0.20%. ULVM is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FNDX or ULVM?
Over the past year FNDX returned +25.57% vs +17.70% for ULVM, so FNDX leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), FNDX annualized +13.13% vs +9.72% for ULVM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FNDX or ULVM?
ULVM has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 16.7% for FNDX. Worst drawdown: FNDX -37.7% vs ULVM -40.8%.
Should I hold both FNDX and ULVM?
FNDX and ULVM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 ULVM?
93.1% of ULVM's money is in holdings FNDX also owns. 93.1% of ULVM's is in holdings FNDX also owns. They hold 114 positions in common, counted across the 733 positions we hold weights for in FNDX and 125 in ULVM.
Which pays a higher dividend, FNDX or ULVM?
FNDX yields 1.50% while ULVM yields 1.81%, so ULVM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ULVM better than FNDX?
ULVM has a lower expense ratio. FNDX led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. ULVM is less concentrated, with 13.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 22.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.