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

ONEQ vs USMV: how they differ

ONEQ and USMV hold 17% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.

Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ONEQ and USMV hold 17% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ONEQ and USMV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingONEQUSMV
NVIDIA CORP11.24%1.64%
MICROSOFT CORP7.32%1.56%
CISCO SYSTEMS INC1.04%1.81%
WALMART INC2.02%0.88%
APPLE INC10.04%0.82%
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC.0.60%0.78%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC1.84%0.53%
BROADCOM INC4.64%0.50%
PALO ALTO NETWORKS INC0.50%0.53%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC0.78%0.50%
ALPHABET INC4.48%0.45%
T-MOBILE US INC0.45%1.17%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ONEQOnly in USMV
ALPHABET INC 4.85%EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION 1.60%
TESLA INC 3.58%DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 1.55%
INTEL CORP 1.25%THE SOUTHERN COMPANY 1.53%
LAM RESEARCH CORP 0.87%AMPHENOL CORPORATION 1.51%
KLA CORP 0.55%Chubb Limited 1.50%
SANDISK CORP/DE 0.55%VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. 1.49%
LINDE PLC 0.50%WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. 1.48%
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC 0.42%MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. 1.46%

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.

ONEQ and USMV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
USMV
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityiShares
What it isNasdaq CompositeMSCI USA Min Vol Factor
Total return, 1 year+20.6%+6.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.1 pts−10.9 pts
Expense ratio0.21%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50087.4%94.8%
Holdings1022170

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%.

USMV in plain words

USMV is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Min Vol Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +6.6% 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 Apr 30, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 170 positions, with the top ten at 15.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ONEQ or USMV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ONEQ returned +20.6% and USMV returned +6.6%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ONEQ or USMV?
ONEQ charges 0.21% a year and USMV charges 0.15%, so USMV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ONEQ and USMV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of ONEQ and 95% of USMV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 17% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources