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

MDY vs ONEQ: how they differ

MDY and ONEQ hold 3% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.

SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, MDY and ONEQ hold 3% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions MDY and ONEQ both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingMDYONEQ
STERLING INFRASTRUCTURE INC0.71%0.06%
MACOM TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS HOLDINGS INC0.69%0.06%
ILLUMINA INC0.73%0.05%
NEXTPOWER INC0.49%0.05%
UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORP0.64%0.05%
ENTEGRIS INC0.76%0.05%
OKTA INC0.63%0.04%
MKS INC0.83%0.04%
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP0.58%0.04%
WOODWARD INC0.70%0.04%
ROYAL GOLD INC0.45%0.04%
TTM TECHNOLOGIES INC0.54%0.04%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in MDYOnly in ONEQ
TWILIO INC 0.86%NVIDIA CORP 11.24%
CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORP 0.85%APPLE INC 10.04%
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORP 0.77%MICROSOFT CORP 7.32%
NVENT ELECTRIC PLC 0.76%AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%
ATI INC 0.74%ALPHABET INC 4.85%
TECHNIPFMC PLC 0.73%BROADCOM INC 4.64%
MASTEC INC 0.71%ALPHABET INC 4.48%
EVERPURE INC 0.69%TESLA INC 3.58%

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 Jun 30, 2026 and May 31, 2026.

MDY and ONEQ on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
MDY
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerState StreetFidelity
What it isS&P MidCap 400, book from IJHNasdaq Composite
Total return, 1 year+13.0%+20.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−4.5 pts+3.1 pts
Expense ratio0.23%0.21%
Already in the S&P 5000.0%87.4%
Holdings4001022

MDY in plain words

MDY is an index equity fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +13.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.23% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 400 positions, with the top ten at 7.7%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

ONEQ in plain words

ONEQ is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.21% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1022 positions, with the top ten at 57.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, MDY or ONEQ?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, MDY returned +13.0% and ONEQ returned +20.6%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, MDY or ONEQ?
MDY charges 0.23% a year and ONEQ charges 0.21%, so ONEQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do MDY and ONEQ overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 0% of MDY and 87% of ONEQ by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 3% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources