FMAG vs RJCA

FMAG vs RJCA

Which is better, FMAG or RJCA?

RJCA has been ahead.

FMAG has a lower expense ratio. RJCA led over 1Y. FMAG is less concentrated, with 45.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.5%.

Lower Fees: FMAGHigher Returns (1Y): RJCALess Concentrated: FMAG

MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.

Side-by-Side Comparison

MetricFMAGRJCA
Expense Ratio0.57%Best0.61%
AUM$242M$607M
Dividend Yield0.08%0.00%
Holdings5272
YTD Return+7.23%Tie+7.23%Tie
1Y Return+3.66%-
3Y Return (annualized)+18.85%-
5Y Return (annualized)+10.13%-
Top 10 Weight45.0%Best53.5%
Fund FamilyFidelity Investments (US)Carillon Family of Funds
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap GrowthLarge Cap Growth
InceptionFeb 2, 2021Mar 21, 2006

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

FMAG vs RJCA growth

Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

Compare FMAG against instead:FMAG vs SPYFMAG vs QQQFMAG vs VOOFMAG vs VTIRJCA against:RJCA vs VXUS

FMAG vs RJCA Performance

Fidelity Magellan ETF (FMAG) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and RJ ClariVest Capital Appreciation ETF (RJCA) is an ETF from Carillon Family of Funds. Year to date, FMAG is up 7.23% versus a gain of 7.23% for RJCA.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

FMAG charges 0.57% per year while RJCA charges 0.61%. On a $10,000 position that is $57 vs $61 annually, a gap of $4 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FMAG currently yields 0.08% against 0.00% for RJCA.

Holdings Overlap

FMAG already in RJCA56.0%
RJCA already in FMAG50.7%

56.0% of FMAG's money is in holdings RJCA also owns. 50.7% of RJCA's money is in holdings FMAG also owns.

The two portfolios partly overlap.

17 positions in common, counted across the 53 positions we hold weights for in FMAG and 71 in RJCA, against full books of 52 and 72.

What only one of them owns

Measured across the 53 and 71 positions we hold weights for.

FMAG holds 31 positions RJCA does not, 40.5% of the fund.

Largest: LRCX 1.93%, CDNS 1.86%, APH 1.67%, STX 1.66%, CAT 1.57%

Top Shared Holdings

StockWeight in FMAGWeight in RJCADifference
NVDANvidia Corp10.04%13.34%3.30%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp5.32%6.18%0.86%
AVGOBroadcom Inc5.18%5.57%0.39%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A4.06%4.92%0.86%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc6.74%1.96%4.78%
GOOGAlphabet Inc. C3.54%3.82%0.28%
KLACKla Corp2.17%2.72%0.55%
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc3.33%1.22%2.11%
METAMeta Platforms Inc1.92%2.58%0.66%
VVisa Inc Class A2.27%1.78%0.49%

56.0% of FMAG is already inside RJCA.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

FMAGRJCA

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, FMAG or RJCA?

FMAG has an expense ratio of 0.57% while RJCA charges 0.61%. FMAG is the cheaper option, by $4 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between FMAG and RJCA?

56.0% of FMAG's money is in holdings RJCA also owns. 50.7% of RJCA's is in holdings FMAG also owns. They hold 17 positions in common, counted across the 53 positions we hold weights for in FMAG and 71 in RJCA.

Which pays a higher dividend, FMAG or RJCA?

FMAG yields 0.08% while RJCA yields 0.00%, so FMAG currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is RJCA better than FMAG?

FMAG has a lower expense ratio. RJCA led over 1Y. FMAG is less concentrated, with 45.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.