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

FTEC vs XOVR: how they differ

FTEC and XOVR hold 12% of their weight in the same names, and FTEC returned more over the year.

Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FTEC and XOVR hold 12% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FTEC and XOVR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFTECXOVR
NVIDIA Corp18.00%9.48%
Arista Networks Inc0.89%2.31%
Palantir Technologies Inc1.40%0.56%
AppLovin Corp0.51%3.95%
Monolithic Power Systems Inc0.44%1.77%
Astera Labs Inc0.21%7.75%
MongoDB Inc0.14%2.29%
Pegasystems Inc0.06%1.56%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FTECOnly in XOVR
Apple Inc 14.38%Alphabet Inc 6.53%
Microsoft Corp 9.54%Meta Platforms Inc 4.47%
Broadcom Inc 5.01%Natera Inc 3.70%
Micron Technology Inc 2.64%Robinhood Markets Inc 3.56%
Advanced Micro Devices Inc 2.60%Veeva Systems Inc 3.17%
Intel Corp 1.99%Reddit Inc 2.78%
Cisco Systems Inc 1.66%Affirm Holdings Inc 2.64%
Lam Research Corp 1.49%Axon Enterprise Inc 2.60%

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 Jun 30, 2026.

FTEC and XOVR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FTEC
Fidelity MSCI Information Technology Index ETF
XOVR
ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityERShares
What it isMSCI Information TechnologyPrivate-Public Crossover
Total return, 1 year+35.7%0.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+18.2 pts−17.5 pts
Expense ratio0.08%0.75%
Already in the S&P 50086.2%43.4%
Holdings28232

FTEC in plain words

FTEC is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI Information Technology. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +35.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.08% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 86% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 282 positions, with the top ten at 58.8%. It sat 3.7% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

XOVR in plain words

XOVR is an index equity fund tracking the Private-Public Crossover. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned 0.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 43% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 32 positions, with the top ten at 63.1%. It sat 4.2% below its high of Oct 27, 2025 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FTEC or XOVR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FTEC returned +35.7% and XOVR returned 0.0%, so FTEC returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FTEC or XOVR?
FTEC charges 0.08% a year and XOVR charges 0.75%, so FTEC is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FTEC and XOVR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 86% of FTEC and 43% of XOVR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 12% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources