FTIHX vs FZILX
Fidelity Total International Index Fund vs Fidelity ZERO International Index Fund
Which is better, FTIHX or FZILX?
Nearly the same fund. FZILX costs less.
FZILX has a lower expense ratio. FZILX led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99.
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 | FTIHX | FZILX |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.06% | 0.00%Best |
| AUM | - | $13.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 2.45% | 2.33% |
| Holdings | 5,059 | 2,172 |
| YTD Price Return | +11.64% | +12.60%Best |
| 1Y Price Return | +15.06% | +16.67%Best |
| 3Y Price Return (annualized) | +16.90% | +17.57%Best |
| 5Y Price Return (annualized) | +5.70% | +6.25%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.5% | 15.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -31.3%Best | -32.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,194 | $13,541Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | Fidelity Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 7, 2016 | Aug 2, 2018 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Returns are price returns and exclude distributions, because our data feed carries no adjusted close for FTIHX or FZILX. Both funds are measured the same way, so the comparison holds. FTIHX yields 2.45% and FZILX 2.33% on top.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 15, 2021 to Oct 13, 2026 (5 years).
FTIHX vs FZILX 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 5 years both funds cover. Prices exclude distributions, on both funds alike.
FTIHX vs FZILX Performance
Fidelity Total International Index Fund (FTIHX) is a mutual fund from Fidelity Investments (US) and Fidelity ZERO International Index Fund (FZILX) is a mutual fund from Fidelity Investments (US). Over the past year FTIHX returned +15.06% while FZILX returned +16.67%. Year to date, FTIHX is up 11.64% versus a gain of 12.60% for FZILX.
Over three years, FTIHX compounded at +16.90% per year against +17.57% for FZILX; over five years the annualized figures are +5.70% and +6.25% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FTIHX has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.5% compared with 15.3% for FZILX. 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 -31.3% for FTIHX and -32.3% for FZILX. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FTIHX charges 0.06% per year while FZILX charges 0.00%. On a $10,000 position that is $6 vs $0 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FTIHX currently yields 2.45% against 2.33% for FZILX.
Holdings Overlap
At least 92.9% of FZILX's money is in holdings FTIHX also owns.
Stated as a floor: for FTIHX, our book for it covers 93.0% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
Most of FZILX is already inside FTIHX. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
1,657 positions in common, counted across the 3,204 positions we hold weights for in FTIHX and 2,099 in FZILX, against full books of 5,059 and 2,172.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in FTIHX | Weight in FZILX | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2330:TWTsmc | 4.20% | 4.44% | 0.24% |
| 005930:KRSamsung Electronics Co Ltd | 1.86% | 2.10% | 0.24% |
| FTBFXFidelity Cash Central Fund | 1.99% | 1.74% | 0.25% |
| ASML:ASASML HOLDING NV | 1.48% | 1.59% | 0.11% |
| 000660:KRSk Hynix Inc Common Stock KRW 5000 | 1.43% | 1.49% | 0.06% |
| 0700:KYTencent Holdings Ltd Ordinary Shares | 0.87% | 0.93% | 0.06% |
| HSBA:LNHsbc Holdings Plc | 0.84% | 0.91% | 0.07% |
| RHO5:FFRoche Holding Ag- Genusschein | 0.71% | 0.76% | 0.05% |
| RY:CARoyal Bank of Canada | 0.67% | 0.73% | 0.06% |
| NOVN:SMNovartis Ag Ordinary Shares | 0.66% | 0.71% | 0.05% |
92.9% of FZILX is already inside FTIHX.
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, FTIHX or FZILX?
FTIHX has an expense ratio of 0.06% while FZILX charges 0.00%. FZILX is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FTIHX or FZILX?
Over the past year FTIHX returned +15.06% vs +16.67% for FZILX, so FZILX leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FTIHX or FZILX?
FTIHX has been the more volatile fund at 15.5% annualized versus 15.3% for FZILX. Worst drawdown: FTIHX -31.3% vs FZILX -32.3%.
Should I hold both FTIHX and FZILX?
FTIHX and FZILX have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, 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 FTIHX and FZILX?
At least 92.9% of FZILX's money is in holdings FTIHX also owns. Our book for FTIHX is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 1,657 positions in common, counted across the 3,204 positions we hold weights for in FTIHX and 2,099 in FZILX.
Which pays a higher dividend, FTIHX or FZILX?
FTIHX yields 2.45% while FZILX yields 2.33%, so FTIHX currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FZILX better than FTIHX?
FZILX has a lower expense ratio. FZILX led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.