Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

AVUS vs FNDX: how they differ

AVUS and FNDX hold 62% of their weight in the same names, and FNDX returned more over the year.

Avantis U.S. Equity ETF and Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, AVUS and FNDX hold 62% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions AVUS and FNDX both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingAVUSFNDX
Apple Inc5.37%4.64%
Alphabet Inc2.42%2.38%
Microsoft Corp3.85%2.33%
Alphabet Inc1.94%1.90%
Amazon.com Inc3.68%1.86%
Micron Technology Inc2.40%1.60%
Meta Platforms Inc2.21%1.24%
JPMorgan Chase & Co1.20%1.38%
Exxon Mobil Corp1.07%2.29%
Broadcom Inc1.18%0.65%
Walmart Inc0.64%1.01%
Merck & Co Inc0.63%0.68%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in AVUSOnly in FNDX
Flex Ltd 0.28%Philip Morris International Inc 0.35%
Comfort Systems USA Inc 0.26%Linde PLC 0.29%
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 0.25%Altria Group Inc 0.29%
AppLovin Corp 0.25%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.29%
Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.23%Accenture PLC 0.26%
Linde PLC 0.20%Lumen Technologies Inc 0.22%
Chubb Ltd 0.19%Bunge Global SA 0.20%
United Airlines Holdings Inc 0.18%LyondellBasell Industries NV 0.19%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated May 31, 2026.

AVUS and FNDX on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
AVUS
Avantis U.S. Equity ETF
FNDX
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerAvantisSchwab
What it isU.S. EquityFundamental U.S. Large Company
Total return, 1 year+21.6%+26.1%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+4.1 pts+8.6 pts
Expense ratio0.15%0.25%
Already in the S&P 50084.4%91.2%
Holdings1875733

AVUS in plain words

AVUS is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 84% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1875 positions, with the top ten at 29.7%.

FNDX in plain words

FNDX is an index equity fund tracking the Fundamental U.S. Large Company. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +26.1% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 733 positions, with the top ten at 22.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, AVUS or FNDX?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, AVUS returned +21.6% and FNDX returned +26.1%, so FNDX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, AVUS or FNDX?
AVUS charges 0.15% a year and FNDX charges 0.25%, so AVUS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do AVUS and FNDX overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 84% of AVUS and 91% of FNDX by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 62% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

AVUS against FNDX, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, AVUS against FNDX, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/AVUS-FNDX Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources