Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
FNDX vs RSP: how they differ
FNDX and RSP hold 45% of their weight in the same names, and FNDX returned more over the year.
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, FNDX and RSP hold 45% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | FNDX | RSP |
|---|---|---|
| Intel Corp | 2.57% | 0.38% |
| Advanced Micro Devices Inc | 0.39% | 0.33% |
| Centene Corp | 0.43% | 0.29% |
| Texas Instruments Inc | 0.43% | 0.27% |
| Humana Inc | 0.32% | 0.27% |
| Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co | 0.29% | 0.26% |
| Western Digital Corp | 0.26% | 0.31% |
| QUALCOMM Inc | 0.53% | 0.26% |
| Nucor Corp | 0.39% | 0.25% |
| Elevance Health Inc | 0.51% | 0.25% |
| UnitedHealth Group Inc | 1.37% | 0.25% |
| Caterpillar Inc | 0.60% | 0.24% |
| Only in FNDX | Only in RSP |
|---|---|
| Linde PLC 0.29% | Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.34% |
| Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.29% | NXP Semiconductors N.V. 0.28% |
| Accenture PLC 0.26% | Lumentum Holdings Inc. 0.26% |
| Lumen Technologies Inc 0.22% | Comfort Systems USA, Inc. 0.25% |
| Bunge Global SA 0.20% | Carvana Co. 0.25% |
| LyondellBasell Industries NV 0.19% | Coherent Corp. 0.24% |
| Chubb Ltd 0.18% | Eaton Corp. PLC 0.23% |
| CRH PLC 0.17% | Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. 0.22% |
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 Apr 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.
| FNDX Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF | RSP Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Schwab | Invesco |
| What it is | Fundamental U.S. Large Company | S&P 500 equal weight |
| Total return, 1 year | +26.1% | +14.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +8.6 pts | −2.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | 0.20% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 91.2% | 99.1% |
| Holdings | 733 | 503 |
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%.
RSP in plain words
RSP is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 equal weight. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 503 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, FNDX or RSP?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FNDX returned +26.1% and RSP returned +14.8%, so FNDX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, FNDX or RSP?
- FNDX charges 0.25% a year and RSP charges 0.20%, so RSP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do FNDX and RSP overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 91% of FNDX and 99% of RSP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 45% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, FNDX against RSP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FNDX-RSP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources