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 XOVR: how they differ

ONEQ and XOVR hold 21% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.

Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ONEQ and XOVR hold 21% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ONEQ and XOVR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingONEQXOVR
NVIDIA CORP11.24%9.48%
ALPHABET INC4.85%6.53%
META PLATFORMS INC3.03%4.47%
TESLA INC3.58%1.63%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC0.78%0.56%
APPLOVIN CORP0.41%3.95%
ROCKET LAB CORP0.18%2.50%
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS INC0.17%1.77%
ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC0.16%3.56%
DOORDASH INC0.14%2.04%
ASTERA LABS INC0.12%7.75%
AXON ENTERPRISE INC0.08%2.60%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ONEQOnly in XOVR
APPLE INC 10.04%Veeva Systems Inc 3.17%
MICROSOFT CORP 7.32%Reddit Inc 2.78%
AMAZON.COM INC 6.37%Arista Networks Inc 2.31%
BROADCOM INC 4.64%Virtu Financial Inc 1.86%
ALPHABET INC 4.48%Toast Inc 1.71%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 2.38%Resmed Inc 1.36%
WALMART INC 2.02%Globus Medical Inc 1.35%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC 1.84%Ubiquiti Inc 0.92%

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.

ONEQ and XOVR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
XOVR
ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityERShares
What it isNasdaq CompositePrivate-Public Crossover
Total return, 1 year+20.6%0.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.1 pts−17.5 pts
Expense ratio0.21%0.75%
Already in the S&P 50087.4%43.4%
Holdings102232

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%.

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, ONEQ or XOVR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ONEQ returned +20.6% and XOVR returned 0.0%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ONEQ or XOVR?
ONEQ charges 0.21% a year and XOVR charges 0.75%, so ONEQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ONEQ and XOVR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of ONEQ and 43% of XOVR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 21% 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 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, ONEQ against XOVR, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ONEQ-XOVR Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources