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 XRT: how they differ

ONEQ and XRT hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and ONEQ returned more over the year.

Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Retail ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, ONEQ and XRT hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions ONEQ and XRT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingONEQXRT
AMAZON.COM INC6.37%1.35%
WALMART INC2.02%1.27%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP0.93%1.29%
ROSS STORES INC0.16%1.24%
OREILLY AUTOMOTIVE INC0.16%1.38%
EBAY INC0.11%1.42%
CASEY'S GENERAL STORES INC0.06%1.17%
DOLLAR TREE INC0.05%1.48%
ULTA BEAUTY INC0.05%1.30%
TRACTOR SUPPLY CO0.04%1.39%
FIVE BELOW INC0.03%1.24%
MAPLEBEAR INC0.02%1.55%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in ONEQOnly in XRT
NVIDIA CORP 11.24%Groupon Inc 1.78%
APPLE INC 10.04%Bath & Body Works Inc 1.73%
MICROSOFT CORP 7.32%Warby Parker Inc 1.64%
ALPHABET INC 4.85%Coupang Inc 1.55%
BROADCOM INC 4.64%Revolve Group Inc 1.52%
ALPHABET INC 4.48%Victoria's Secret & Co 1.52%
TESLA INC 3.58%MarineMax Inc 1.52%
META PLATFORMS INC 3.03%Kohl's Corp 1.51%

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 XRT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
ONEQ
Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF
XRT
State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Retail ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityState Street
What it isNasdaq CompositeSPDR S&P Retail
Total return, 1 year+20.6%−3.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.1 pts−20.6 pts
Expense ratio0.21%0.35%
Already in the S&P 50087.4%22.5%
Holdings102275

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%.

XRT in plain words

XRT is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR S&P Retail. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −3.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 22% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 75 positions, with the top ten at 16.1%. It sat 12.2% below its high of Nov 16, 2021 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, ONEQ or XRT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, ONEQ returned +20.6% and XRT returned −3.0%, so ONEQ returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, ONEQ or XRT?
ONEQ charges 0.21% a year and XRT charges 0.35%, so ONEQ is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do ONEQ and XRT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of ONEQ and 22% of XRT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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 XRT, 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 XRT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/ONEQ-XRT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources