FNCL vs VTI
Fidelity MSCI Financials Index ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, FNCL or VTI?
Large Cap Value against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 48.4%.
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
| Metric | FNCL | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.08% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $2.4B | $666.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.53% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 389 | 3,543 |
| YTD Return | +2.86% | +11.06%Best |
| 1Y Return | +5.99% | +15.41%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.61% | +20.48%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.15% | +11.52%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.6% | 14.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -45.0% | -35.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,215 | $17,249Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 48.4% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 21, 2013 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 24, 2013 to Sep 16, 2026 (12.9 years).
FNCL vs VTI 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 covers the 12.9 years both funds cover.
FNCL vs VTI Performance
Fidelity MSCI Financials Index ETF (FNCL) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year FNCL returned +5.99% while VTI returned +15.41%. Year to date, FNCL is up 2.86% versus a gain of 11.06% for VTI.
Over three years, FNCL compounded at +19.61% per year against +20.48% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +10.15% and +11.52% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +12.15% annualized vs +10.29%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FNCL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.6% compared with 14.9% for VTI. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -45.0% for FNCL and -35.0% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.83. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FNCL charges 0.08% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $8 vs $3 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FNCL currently yields 1.53% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
97.5% of FNCL's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 12.1% of VTI's money is in holdings FNCL also owns.
Most of FNCL is already inside VTI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
357 positions in common, counted across the 369 positions we hold weights for in FNCL and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 389 and 3,543.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 975 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for FNCL (85.4% of the fund), and 5 for FNCL that do not appear in VTI (0.3%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in FNCL | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 10.43% | 1.31% | 9.12% |
| BRK.BBerkshire Hathaway Inc Brk/B Us Equity | 7.84% | 1.28% | 6.56% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 6.94% | 0.83% | 6.11% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 5.27% | 0.63% | 4.64% |
| BACBank Of America Corp. | 4.43% | 0.55% | 3.88% |
| GSGoldman Sachs Group Inc/The | 3.34% | 0.40% | 2.94% |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co. | 2.88% | 0.37% | 2.51% |
| MSMorgan Stanley | 2.77% | 0.35% | 2.42% |
| CCitigroup Inc. | 2.48% | 0.30% | 2.18% |
| SCHWSchwab Strategic T | 2.00% | 0.24% | 1.76% |
97.5% of FNCL is already inside VTI.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FNCL or VTI?
FNCL has an expense ratio of 0.08% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FNCL or VTI?
Over the past year FNCL returned +5.99% vs +15.41% for VTI, so VTI leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), FNCL annualized +10.29% vs +12.15% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FNCL or VTI?
FNCL has been the more volatile fund at 18.6% annualized versus 14.9% for VTI. Worst drawdown: FNCL -45.0% vs VTI -35.0%.
Should I hold both FNCL and VTI?
FNCL and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.83, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FNCL and VTI?
97.5% of FNCL's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 12.1% of VTI's is in holdings FNCL also owns. They hold 357 positions in common, counted across the 369 positions we hold weights for in FNCL and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, FNCL or VTI?
FNCL yields 1.53% while VTI yields 1.03%, so FNCL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than FNCL?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. VTI led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 48.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.