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

FNDX vs VTWO: how they differ

FNDX and VTWO hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and FNDX returned more over the year.

Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF and Vanguard Russell 2000 Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FNDX and VTWO hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FNDX and VTWO both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFNDXVTWO
Lumen Technologies Inc0.22%0.31%
PBF Energy Inc0.10%0.10%
SM Energy Co0.06%0.23%
United Natural Foods Inc0.06%0.09%
Vishay Intertechnology Inc0.06%0.18%
Sanmina Corp0.06%0.41%
Commercial Metals Co0.05%0.25%
Kohl's Corp0.06%0.05%
World Kinect Corp0.05%0.05%
Advance Auto Parts Inc0.04%0.11%
Murphy Oil Corp0.04%0.14%
Matson Inc0.04%0.16%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FNDXOnly in VTWO
Apple Inc 4.64%Bloom Energy Corp 1.83%
Intel Corp 2.57%Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 1.12%
Alphabet Inc 2.38%Sterling Infrastructure Inc 0.76%
Microsoft Corp 2.33%Fabrinet 0.69%
Exxon Mobil Corp 2.29%Nextpower Inc 0.67%
Alphabet Inc 1.90%IonQ Inc 0.63%
Amazon.com Inc 1.86%Coeur Mining Inc 0.58%
Micron Technology Inc 1.60%TTM Technologies Inc 0.52%

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.

FNDX and VTWO on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FNDX
Schwab Fundamental U.S. Large Company ETF
VTWO
Vanguard Russell 2000 Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerSchwabVanguard
What it isFundamental U.S. Large CompanyRussell 2000
Total return, 1 year+26.1%+21.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+8.6 pts+3.9 pts
Expense ratio0.25%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50091.2%0.5%
Holdings7331951

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%.

VTWO in plain words

VTWO is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 2000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1951 positions, with the top ten at 7.8%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FNDX or VTWO?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FNDX returned +26.1% and VTWO returned +21.4%, so FNDX returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FNDX or VTWO?
FNDX charges 0.25% a year and VTWO charges 0.07%, so VTWO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FNDX and VTWO overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 91% of FNDX and 0% of VTWO by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources