Fund Comparison

The Fidelity Total Stock Market Index Fund (FSKAX) is one of the largest mutual funds in the world, with multiple share classes that go back decades. In 2018, Fidelity launched the ZERO Total Market Index Fund (FZROX) which advertises a 0% expense ratio. Investors evaluating FSKAX vs FZROX will be hard-pressed to find many differences beyond the fact that FZROX can only be owned at Fidelity. The funds are nearly identical in every way, except for one major difference: FZROX cannot be bought or owned in non-Fidelity accounts.

A quick reminder that this site does NOT provide investment recommendations. Fund comparisons (such as this one) are not conducted to identify the “best” fund (since that will vary from investor to investor based on investor-specific factors). Rather, these fund comparison posts are designed to identify and distinguish between the fund details that matter versus the ones that don’t.

The Short Answer

There are very few differences between FSKAX and FZROX, except for the fact that FZROX cannot be bought or owned outside of Fidelity.

The underlying benchmark indices that these funds track are technically different (Dow Jones US Total Market Index vs Fidelity U.S. Total Investable Market Index), but they are identical is most respects. Consequently, the risk and return of FSKAX and FZROX is nearly identical and I consider these two funds equivalent and interchangeable.

Historical Performance: FSKAX vs FZROX

FSKAX was launched in 2011 (although other share classes of the fund go back decades), while FZROX was launched on August 2, 2018. Since that time, the fund’s have performed nearly identically: 8.06% vs 8.23% annualized. The cumulative performance difference over that time has only been about 1%.

Differences Between FSKAX and FZROX

As the above performance chart shows, the risk and return of the two funds is nearly identical. This is not surprising given the fund composition data below.

Geography

Both the FZROX and FSKAX only include stocks of US-domiciled companies.

Market Capitalization

The two funds have a quite a different number of holdings (as of 11/30/2022); FZROX holds 2,822 stocks versus FSKAX’s 3,989 stocks. However, the market cap weighting of the funds are identical.

	FZROX	FSKAX
Large Cap	73%	73%
Mid Cap	19%	19%
Small Cap	9%	9%

Sector Weights

The sector weights of each fund are nearly identical and every single sector weight is with .05% of the other funds.

	FZROX	FSKAX
Basic Materials	2.67%	2.66%
Consumer Cyclical	10.47%	10.43%
Financial Services	14.01%	14.04%
Real Estate	3.46%	3.46%
Communication Services	6.90%	6.91%
Energy	5.14%	5.13%
Industrials	9.59%	9.58%
Technology	23.15%	23.18%
Consumer Defensive	6.79%	6.77%
Healthcare	14.95%	14.97%
Utilities	2.87%	2.87%

Factors to Consider

Tradability

In my view, the most important factor to consider when evaluating FSKAX vs FZROX is the fact that FZROX cannot be bought or owned outside of Fidelity. Personally, this is a non-starter for me as there are reasons to transfer assets to other custodians, such as transferring one’s accounts or making a donation. Some investors may not value flexibility as much, but they should be aware of this limitation.

Expenses

FZROX grabbed headlines when Fidelity announced it, due to the 0% expense ratio. While zero expenses is great, it is only .015% less than FSKAX. So even though the difference in expenses is infinite in relative terms, its only a basis point and a half difference. At a certain level (such as this one), differences in expense ratios do not matter.

Transaction Costs

ETFs are free to trade at many brokers and custodians, although many still charge commissions and/or transaction fees to buy/sell mutual funds. To my knowledge, Fidelity does not participate in the pay-to-play arrangements that would allow their mutual funds to trade for free on many platforms. So if an investor account is at Fidelity, it is free to trade FSKAX or FZROX. Outside of Fidelity, investors cannot trade FZROX and will have to pay to trade FSKAX.

Tax Efficiency & Capital Gain Distributions

Both FSKAX and FXROX routinely makes capital gains distributions, although they are relatively small owing to the fact that they are both index funds. Taxable investors may want to consider ETFs which are generally more tax-efficient and can read our reviews of FSKAX vs VTI or VTSAX vs ITOT.

Final Thoughts on FSKAX & FZROX

These two funds are nearly identical, except for the fact that FZROX can only be bought and owned at Fidelity. As mentioned above, I view this a severe limitation and would not consider FZROX for my personal portfolio.

The Fidelity Total Stock Market Index fund (FSKAX) and the iShares Core S&P Total US Stock Market ETF (ITOT) are two of the largest “total market” index funds in existence and easily two of the most popular among individual investors. ITOT and FSKAX are the core of many investor portfolios and many investors compare FSKAX vs ITOT in order to decide which should be the foundation of their portfolio.

A quick reminder that this site does NOT provide investment recommendations. Fund comparisons (such as this one) are not conducted to identify the “best” fund (since that will vary from investor to investor based on investor-specific factors). Rather, these fund comparison posts are designed to identify and distinguish between the fund details that matter versus the ones that don’t.

The Short Answer

There are very few differences between the two funds. In my view, the largest difference is that FSKAX is a mutual fund and ITOT is an ETF. This difference in structure leads to differences in taxes, tradability, etc.

The underlying benchmark indices that these funds track are technically different (S&P Total Market Index vs Dow Jones US Total Market Index), but they are identical is most respects. Consequently, the risk and return of FSKAX and ITOT is nearly identical and I consider these two funds equivalent and interchangeable.

The Longer Answer

These two funds are incredibly similar and leads some to question: is ITOT the same as FSKAX?

Technically, ITOT is a different fund with a different structure than FSKAX. But for many intents and purposes, ITOT and FSKAX are identical. Both funds are broad-based indices that represent the US equity markets.

Historical Performance: FSKAX vs ITOT

ITOT was launched in 2004, while FSKAX was launched on September 7, 2011 (although other share classes of the Fidelity fund existed prior to this date). Since that time, the two funds have had identical performance: 12.65% vs 12.68% on an annualized basis. Over those 11 years, the cumulative performance differential has been only been about 1%!

Differences Between FSKAX and ITOT

Geography

Both the ITOT and FSKAX only include stocks of US-domiciled companies.

Market Capitalization

The two funds have a similar number of holdings (as of 11/30/2022); ITOT holds 3,362 stocks versus FSKAX’s 3,989 stocks. Perhaps not surprisingly, the market cap weighting of the funds are essentially identical.

	ITOT	FSKAX
Large Cap	72%	73%
Mid Cap	20%	19%
Small Cap	9%	9%

Sector Weights

The sector weights of each fund are nearly identical, with many sector weights within .10% of each other!

	ITOT	FSKAX
Basic Materials	2.74%	2.66%
Consumer Cyclical	10.21%	10.43%
Financial Services	14.25%	14.04%
Real Estate	3.58%	3.46%
Communication Services	6.93%	6.91%
Energy	5.04%	5.13%
Industrials	9.86%	9.58%
Technology	23.57%	23.18%
Consumer Defensive	6.77%	6.77%
Healthcare	15.07%	14.97%
Utilities	3.00%	2.87%

Factors to Consider

Expenses

Some investors may point out that the expense ratios between FSKAX and ITOT differ. This is true, but it is also reflected in the net performance chart above. At a certain level, differences in expense ratios do not matter. A small absolute difference (in basis points) is essentially meaningless (even if it appears large on a percentage basis). Since these portfolios are essentially identical, I would most likely lean towards ITOT.

Transaction Costs

ETFs are free to trade at many brokers and custodians, although many still charge commissions and/or transaction fees to buy/sell mutual funds. To my knowledge, Fidelity does not participate in the pay-to-play arrangements that would allow their mutual funds to trade for free on many platforms. So if an investor account is at Fidelity, it is free to trade FSKAX or ITOT. However, only ITOT is free to trade in non-Fidelity accounts.

There is a bid-ask spread when trading ETFs, but this spread is typically less than .01% for ITOT and individual investor trades will not generally be large enough to “move” the market. In the case of ITOT, individual investors should not have a problem trading.

Tax Efficiency & Capital Gain Distributions

ETFs are typically more tax-efficient than mutual funds, due to their ability to avoid realizing capital gains through like-kind redemptions (a process that is beyond the scope of this post).

FSKAX routinely makes capital gains distributions, while ITOT does not make capital gains distributions nor do I expect it to (since it is an ETF). FSKAX is relatively tax-efficient since it is an index fund, but ITOT is even more tax-efficient.

Tax Loss Harvesting

My personal preference is to keep a portfolio entirely mutual funds or entirely ETFs, due to the mechanics of settlement during tax loss harvesting. If an ETF has declined in value and an investor sells it, the trade and cash proceeds will not settle for two business days (T+2). That investor may want to “replace” the sold ETF immediately and attempt to buy another ETF or mutual fund simultaneously.

However, mutual funds settle on T+1 basis, so cash for the mutual purchase would be due in one business day (which is one day earlier than the cash from the ETF sale is received). This can obviously cause problems and (even though this issue can be addressed with careful planning) I find it easier to keep accounts invested in similar vehicles. In this case, if a portfolio is all mutual funds, I might lean more towards FSKAX. If all ETFs, I might lean more towards ITOT.

Final Thoughts on FSKAX & ITOT

Except for the fact that FSKAX is a mutual fund and ITOT and ETF, these two funds are nearly identical. Personally, I would not spend too much time trying to divine which is “better” and would just choose whichever makes more sense for my portfolio based on the above factors.

The Fidelity Total Stock Market Index fund (FSKAX) and the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX) are two of the largest “total market” index funds in existence and easily two of the most popular among individual investors. VTSAX and FSKAX are the core of many investor portfolios and many investors compare FSKAX vs VTSAX in order to decide which should be the foundation of their portfolio.

A quick reminder that this site does NOT provide investment recommendations. Fund comparisons (such as this one) are not conducted to identify the “best” fund (since that will vary from investor to investor based on investor-specific factors). Rather, these fund comparison posts are designed to identify and distinguish between the fund details that matter versus the ones that don’t.

The Short Answer

There are very few differences between the two funds. The underlying benchmark indices that these funds track are technically different (CRSP US Total Market vs Dow Jones US Total Market), but they are identical is most respects. Consequently, the risk and return of FSKAX vs VTSAX funds is nearly identical and I consider these two funds equivalent and interchangeable.

The Longer Answer

These two funds are incredibly similar and leads some to question: are VTSAX and FSKAX the same?

Technically, VTSAX and FSKAX are different funds. But for many intents and purposes, VTSAX and FSKAX are identical. Both funds are broad-based indices that represent the US equity markets.

Historical Performance: FSKAX vs VTSAX

VTSAX was launched in 2001, while FSKAX was launched on September 7, 2011 (although other share classes of the Fidelity fund existed prior to this date). Since that time, the two funds have had identical performance: 12.65% vs 12.68% on an annualized basis. Over those 11 years, the cumulative performance differential has only been 1%!

Differences Between FSKAX and VTSAX

Geography

Both the VTSAX and FSKAX only include stocks of US-domiciled companies.

Market Capitalization

The two funds have a similar number of holdings (as of 11/30/2022); VTSAX holds 4,026 stocks versus FSKAX’s 3,989 stocks. Perhaps not surprisingly, the market cap weighting of the funds are identical.

	VTSAX	FSKAX
Large Cap	73%	73%
Mid Cap	19%	19%
Small Cap	9%	9%

Sector Weights

The sector weights of each fund are nearly identical, with many sector weights within .05% of each other!

	VTSAX	FSKAX
Basic Materials	2.65%	2.66%
Consumer Cyclical	10.35%	10.43%
Financial Services	13.90%	14.04%
Real Estate	3.48%	3.46%
Communication Services	6.89%	6.91%
Energy	5.09%	5.13%
Industrials	9.80%	9.58%
Technology	23.04%	23.18%
Consumer Defensive	6.80%	6.77%
Healthcare	15.09%	14.97%
Utilities	2.91%	2.87%

Factors to Consider

Expenses

Some investors may point out that the expense ratios between FSKAX and VTSAX differ. This is true, but it is also reflected in the net performance chart above. At a certain level, differences in expense ratios do not matter. A small absolute difference (in basis points) is essentially meaningless (even if it appears large on a percentage basis).

Transaction Costs

ETFs are free to trade at many brokers and custodians, although many still charge commissions and/or transaction fees to buy/sell mutual funds. To my knowledge, neither Vanguard nor Fidelity participates in the pay-to-play arrangements that would allow their mutual funds to trade for free on many platforms. So if an investor account is at Fidelity, it is free to trade FSKAX; However, only accounts at Vanguard can trade VTSAX for free.

Investors looking for an ETF option (to reduce transaction costs) may consider VTI, the ETF equivalent of VTSAX (since Vanguard ETFs are a share class of their mutual funds). We recently reviewed FSKAX vs VTI.

Tax Efficiency & Capital Gain Distributions

FSKAX routinely makes capital gains distributions, while VTSAX has not made a capital gain distributions since 2000 (and I do not expect it to in the future due to the way that Vanguard structures its ETFs). ETFs are typically more tax-efficient than mutual funds, due to their ability to avoid realizing capital gains through like-kind redemptions (a process that is beyond the scope of this post). However, since Vanguard ETFs are a share class of their mutual funds, the mutual funds are able to benefit from this feature of the ETF. In other words, both VTSAX benefits from VTI’s tax-efficient mechanisms.

Thus, tax-sensitive investors may favor VTSAX or an ETF. FSKAX is relatively tax-efficient since it is an index fund, but VTSAX is even more tax-efficient.

Final Thoughts on FSKAX & VTSAX

Except for the fact these funds track different indices, FSKAX and VTSAX are nearly identical. Personally, I would not spend too much time trying to divine which is “better” and would just choose whichever makes more sense for my portfolio based on the above factors.

The Fidelity Total Stock Market Index fund (FSKAX) and the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) are two of the largest “total market” index funds in existence and easily two of the most popular among individual investors. VTI and FSKAX are the core of many investor portfolios and many investors compare FSKAX vs VTI in order to decide which should be the foundation of their portfolio.

A quick reminder that this site does NOT provide investment recommendations. Fund comparisons (such as this one) are not conducted to identify the “best” fund (since that will vary from investor to investor based on investor-specific factors). Rather, these fund comparison posts are designed to identify and distinguish between the fund details that matter versus the ones that don’t.

The Short Answer

There are very few differences between the two funds. In my view, the largest difference is that FSKAX is a mutual fund and VTI is an ETF. This difference in structure leads to differences in taxes, tradability, etc.

The underlying benchmark indices that these funds track are technically different (CRSP US Total Market vs Dow Jones US Total Market), but they are identical is most respects. Consequently, the risk and return of these funds is nearly identical and I consider these two funds equivalent and interchangeable.

The Longer Answer

These two funds are incredibly similar and leads some to question: is VTI the same as FSKAX?

Technically, VTI is a different fund with a different structure than FSKAX. But for many intents and purposes, VTI and FSKAX are identical. Both funds are broad-based indices that represent the US equity markets.

Historical Performance: FSKAX vs VTI

VTI was launched in 2001, while FSKAX was launched on September 7, 2011 (although other share classes of the Fidelity fund existed prior to this date). Since that time, the two funds have had identical performance: 12.65% vs 12.69% on an annualized basis. Over those 11 years, the cumulative performance differential has been less than 1.5%!

Differences Between FSKAX and VTI

Geography

Both the VTI and FSKAX only include stocks of US-domiciled companies.

Market Capitalization

The two funds have a similar number of holdings (as of 11/30/2022); VTI holds 4,026 stocks versus FSKAX’s 3,989 stocks. Perhaps not surprisingly, the market cap weighting of the funds are identical.

	VTI	FSKAX
Large Cap	73%	73%
Mid Cap	19%	19%
Small Cap	9%	9%

Sector Weights

The sector weights of each fund are nearly identical, with many sector weights within .05% of each other!

	VTI	FSKAX
Basic Materials	2.65%	2.66%
Consumer Cyclical	10.35%	10.43%
Financial Services	13.90%	14.04%
Real Estate	3.48%	3.46%
Communication Services	6.89%	6.91%
Energy	5.09%	5.13%
Industrials	9.80%	9.58%
Technology	23.04%	23.18%
Consumer Defensive	6.80%	6.77%
Healthcare	15.09%	14.97%
Utilities	2.91%	2.87%

Factors to Consider

Expenses

Some investors may point out that the expense ratios between FSKAX and VTI differ. This is true, but it is also reflected in the net performance chart above. At a certain level, differences in expense ratios do not matter. A small absolute difference (in basis points) is essentially meaningless (even if it appears large on a percentage basis). Since these portfolios are essentially identical, I would most likely lean towards VTI.

Transaction Costs

ETFs are free to trade at many brokers and custodians, although many still charge commissions and/or transaction fees to buy/sell mutual funds. To my knowledge, Fidelity does not participate in the pay-to-play arrangements that would allow their mutual funds to trade for free on many platforms. So if an investor account is at Fidelity, it is free to trade FSKAX or VTI. However, only VTI is free to trade in non-Fidelity accounts.

There is a bid-ask spread when trading ETFs, but this spread is typically less than .01% for VTI and individual investor trades will not generally be large enough to “move” the market. In the case of VTI, individual investors should not have a problem trading.

Tax Efficiency & Capital Gain Distributions

ETFs are typically more tax-efficient than mutual funds, due to their ability to avoid realizing capital gains through like-kind redemptions (a process that is beyond the scope of this post).

FSKAX routinely makes capital gains distributions, while VTI does not make capital gains distributions nor do I expect it to (since it is an ETF). FSKAX is relatively tax-efficient since it is an index fund, but VTI is even more tax-efficient.

Tax Loss Harvesting

My personal preference is to keep a portfolio entirely mutual funds or entirely ETFs, due to the mechanics of settlement during tax loss harvesting. If an ETF has declined in value and an investor sells it, the trade and cash proceeds will not settle for two business days (T+2). That investor may want to “replace” the sold ETF immediately and attempt to buy another ETF or mutual fund simultaneously.

However, mutual funds settle on T+1 basis, so cash for the mutual purchase would be due in one business day (which is one day earlier than the cash from the ETF sale is received). This can obviously cause problems and (even though this issue can be addressed with careful planning) I find it easier to keep accounts invested in similar vehicles. In this case, if a portfolio is all mutual funds, I might lean more towards FSKAX. If all ETFs, I might lean more towards VTI.

Investors looking for a mutual fund version of VTI may consider VTI’s mutual fund share class (VTSAX) and should read our comparison of FSKAX vs VTSAX.

Final Thoughts on FSKAX & VTI

Except for the fact that FSKAX is a mutual fund and VTI and ETF, these two funds are nearly identical. Personally, I would not spend too much time trying to divine which is “better” and would just choose whichever makes more sense for my portfolio based on the above factors.

The Fidelity S&P 500 Index mutual fund (FXAIX) and the Fidelity Total Stock Market Index fund (FSKAX) are two of the largest mutual funds in existence. FXAIX and FSKAX are the core of many investor portfolios. Many investors compare FXAIX vs FSKAX in order to decide which should be the foundation of their portfolio.

A quick reminder that this site does NOT provide investment recommendations. Fund comparisons (such as this one) are not conducted to identify the “best” fund (since that will vary from investor to investor based on investor-specific factors). Rather, these fund comparison posts are designed to identify and distinguish between the fund details that matter versus the ones that don’t.

The Short Answer

The main difference between FXAIX and FSKAX is that FXAIX is a large- and mid-cap fund, while FSKAX is a total market fund. Despite these differences, the total return between these two funds is pretty close.

The Long Answer

Historical Performance: FXAIX vs FSKAX

FXAIX was launched back in 1988, while FSKAX was launched on September 8, 2011 (although other shares classes of the fund existed prior to that). Since then, FXAIX has outperformed by about a half percent annually. This is not a huge performance differential, but it does compound over time. The cumulative difference between the two funds since common inception is approximately 18%.

Of course, the outperformance of FXAIX is reflective of large-cap stocks’ dominance over the past decade. If mid-caps and/or small-caps lead, then I suspect FSKAX would outperform.

Differences between FXAIX vs FSKAX

The biggest difference between FXAIX and FSKAX is the market cap exposure of the funds. FXAIX tracks the S&P 500 index which includes mostly large-caps and some mid-caps, while FSKAX covers much more of the market by including more mid-caps and small-caps.

Geographic Exposure

Both FXAIX and FSKAX hold essentially 100% stocks, so I will not dig into country exposures or market classification here. For intents and purposes, the two funds have identical exposures.

Market Cap Exposure

FXAIX focuses on the S&P 500 index and so it mostly holds large-caps with a bit of mid-cap exposure. FSKAX tracks the broader Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index and so it owns many more mid-caps and small-caps (as of 11/30/2022). In other words, FXAIX is a large-cap vehicle, while FSKAX is a total market vehicle. That being said, due to market cap weighting, both funds are overwhelmingly influenced by the large-cap holdings.

	FXAIX	FSKAX
Large-Cap	83%	73%
Mid-Cap	16%	19%
Small-Cap	0%	9%

Sector Weights

The sector weights between FXAIX and FSKAX are nearly identical, as of 11/30/2022. The weights are within 1% for every single sector.

	FXAIX	FSKAX
Basic Materials	2.40%	2.68%
Consumer Cyclical	10.16%	10.43%
Financial Services	13.80%	14.04%
Real Estate	2.77%	3.46%
Communication Services	7.46%	6.91%
Energy	5.12%	5.13%
Industrials	8.86%	9.58%
Technology	23.72%	23.18%
Consumer Defensive	7.40%	6.77%
Healthcare	15.31%	14.97%
Utilities	2.99%	2.87%

Transaction Costs

Many brokers and custodians still charge commissions and/or transaction fees to buy/sell mutual funds. To my knowledge, Fidelity does not participate in the pay-to-play arrangements (with their competitor custodians) that would allow their mutual funds to trade for free on many platforms. So if an investor account is at Fidelity, it is generally free to trade FXAIX; other custodians will likely charge a fee to trade Fidelity mutual funds.

It is worth noting that neither fund has a minimum for initial or additional investments. That being said, investors looking for free trades may want to consider an a total market ETF or large-cap ETF, rather than FSKAX or FXAIX.

Expenses

The expense ratio for both funds is both the same and extremely low (.015%).

Tax Efficiency & Capital Gain Distributions

Both funds have made capital gains distributions in the past and will likely make them in the future. It is not possible to say which one will be more tax-efficient in the future. As index funds, the tax drag on both funds is very low. However, tax-sensitive taxable investors may want to consider using an ETF in lieu of either of these funds.

Final Thoughts: FXAIX vs FSKAX

Both FXAIX and FSKAX are large, core funds sponsored and managed by one of the largest asset managers in the world (Fidelity). Beyond market cap exposures, the funds appear and act very similar. Long-term performance has been nearly identical. I view these two funds as essentially interchangeable and would not spend too much energy splitting hairs to decide which one is “better.” Overall, these two funds are very similar and I wouldn’t worry too much about picking the “right” one.

iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) and the Fidelity Total Stock Market Index fund (FSKAX) are two of the largest S&P 500 index funds in existence and easily two of the most popular among individual investors. IVV and FSKAX are the core of many investor portfolios and many investors compare FSKAX vs IVV in order to decide which should be the foundation of their portfolio.

A quick reminder that this site does NOT provide investment recommendations. Fund comparisons (such as this one) are not conducted to identify the “best” fund (since that will vary from investor to investor based on investor-specific factors). Rather, these fund comparison posts are designed to identify and distinguish between the fund details that matter versus the ones that don’t.

The Short Answer

The main difference between IVV and FSKAX is that IVV is a large- and mid-cap ETF, while FSKAX is a total market mutual fund. Despite these differences, the total return between these two funds is nearly identical and I consider them interchangeable for all intents and purposes.

The Long Answer

Historical Performance: FSKAX vs IVV

IVV was launched on May 15, 2000, while FSKAX was launched on September 9, 2011 (although other shares classes of the fund existed prior to that). Since then IVV has outperformed by nearly a half percent annually. Despite variations in the size factor performance over the decades, the long-term performance between these two funds is incredibly similar. The cumulative difference in performance is only about 17% over the past 11 years.

Of course, the outperformance of IVV is reflective of large-cap stocks’ dominance over the past decade. If mid-caps and/or small-caps lead, then I suspect FSKAX would outperform.

Differences between FSKAX vs IVV

The biggest difference between IVV and FSKAX is the market cap exposure of the funds. IVV tracks the S&P 500 index which includes mostly large-caps and some mid-caps, while FSKAX covers much more of the market by including more mid-caps and small-caps.

Geographic Exposure

Both IVV and FSKAX hold essentially 100% stocks, so I will not dig into country exposures or market classification here. For intents and purposes, the two funds have identical exposures.

Market Cap Exposure

IVV focuses on the S&P 500 index and so it mostly holds large-caps with a bit of mid-cap exposure. FSKAX tracks the broader Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index and so it owns many more mid-caps and small-caps (data as of 11/30/2022). In other words, IVV is a large-cap vehicle, while FSKAX is a total market vehicle. That being said, due to market cap weighting, both funds are overwhelmingly influenced by the large-cap holdings.

	IVV	FSKAX
Large-Cap	84%	73%
Mid-Cap	16%	19%
Small-Cap	0%	9%

Sector Weights

The sector weights between IVV and FSKAX are nearly identical (IVV data as of 1/6/2023, FSKAX data as of 11/30/2022).

	IVV	FSKAX
Basic Materials	2.50%	2.68%
Consumer Cyclical	9.63%	10.43%
Financial Services	14.20%	14.04%
Real Estate	2.82%	3.46%
Communication Services	7.44%	6.91%
Energy	5.15%	5.13%
Industrials	9.11%	9.58%
Technology	22.62%	23.18%
Consumer Defensive	7.65%	6.77%
Healthcare	15.71%	14.97%
Utilities	3.16%	2.87%

Factors To Consider

Transaction Costs

ETFs are free to trade at many brokers and custodians, including Fidelity. However, many brokers and custodians still charge commissions and/or transaction fees to buy/sell mutual funds. To my knowledge, Fidelity does not participate in the pay-to-play arrangements that would allow their mutual funds to trade for free on many platforms. So if an investor account is at Fidelity, it is free to trade FSKAX or IVV. However, only IVV is free to trade in non-Fidelity accounts.

There is a bid-ask spread when trading ETFs, but this spread is typically less than .01% for IVV and individual investor trades will not generally be large enough to “move” the market. In the case of IVV, individual investors should not have a problem trading.

Tax Efficiency

ETFs are typically more tax-efficient than mutual funds, due to their ability to avoid realizing capital gains through like-kind redemptions (a process that is beyond the scope of this post).

FSKAX does make capital gain distributions, while IVV has not made a capital gains distribution since 2000. IVV is the more tax-efficient option in this case.

Tax Loss Harvesting

My personal preference is to keep a portfolio entirely mutual funds or entirely ETFs, due to the mechanics of settlement during tax loss harvesting. If an ETF has declined in value and an investor sells it, the trade and cash proceeds will not settle for two business days (T+2). That investor may want to “replace” the sold ETF immediately and attempt to buy another ETF or mutual fund simultaneously.

However, mutual funds settle on T+1 basis, so cash for the mutual purchase would be due in one business day (which is one day earlier than the cash from the ETF sale is received). This can obviously cause problems and (even though this issue can be addressed with careful planning) I find it easier to keep accounts invested in similar vehicles. In this case, if a portfolio is all mutual funds, I might lean more towards FSKAX. If all ETFs, I might lean more towards IVV.

Tradability

FSKAX does not have a minimum for initial or additional purchases. The minimum purchase size for IVV is typically one share, although fractional shares are becoming more common.

Investors can trade ETFs intraday, as well as in the pre-market and after-hours trading sessions. Investors can only buy/sell mutual funds once per day. This is not necessarily a major factor for long-term investors however.

Final Thoughts: FSKAX vs IVV

Both IVV and FSKAX are large, core funds sponsored and managed by Blackrock/iShares and Fidelity respectively. Although IVV is more of a large-cap ETF and FSKAX is a total market mutual fund, performance has been pretty close. I view these two funds as essentially interchangeable and would not spend too much energy trying to decide which one is “better.” However, there are some situations that may call for one fund versus another.

Vanguard’s S&P 500 ETF (VOO) and the Fidelity Total Stock Market Index fund (FSKAX) are two of the largest funds in existence and easily two of the most popular among individual investors. VOO and FSKAX are the core of many investor portfolios and many investors compare FSKAX vs VOO in order to decide which should be the foundation of their portfolio.

A quick reminder that this site does NOT provide investment recommendations. Fund comparisons (such as this one) are not conducted to identify the “best” fund (since that will vary from investor to investor based on investor-specific factors). Rather, these fund comparison posts are designed to identify and distinguish between the fund details that matter versus the ones that don’t.

The Short Answer

The main difference between VOO and FSKAX is that VOO is a large- and mid-cap ETF, while FSKAX is a total market mutual fund. Despite these differences, the total return between these two funds is nearly identical and I consider them interchangeable for all intents and purposes.

The Long Answer

Historical Performance: FSKAX vs VOO

VOO was launched on September 7, 2010, while FSKAX was launched a year later on September 9, 2011 (although other shares classes of the fund existed prior to that). Since then VOO has outperformed by just over a half percent annually. Despite variations in the size factor performance over the decades, the long-term performance between these two funds is incredibly similar. The cumulative difference in performance is only about 17% over the past 11 years.

Of course, the outperformance of VOO is reflective of large-cap stocks’ dominance over the past decade. If mid-caps and/or small-caps lead, then I suspect FSKAX would outperform.

Differences between FSKAX vs VOO

The biggest difference between VOO and FSKAX is the market cap exposure of the funds. VOO tracks the S&P 500 index which includes mostly large-caps and some mid-caps, while FSKAX covers much more of the market by including more mid-caps and small-caps.

Geographic Exposure

Both VOO and FSKAX hold essentially 100% stocks, so I will not dig into country exposures or market classification here. For intents and purposes, the two funds have identical exposures.

Market Cap Exposure

VOO focuses on the S&P 500 index and so it mostly holds large-caps with a bit of mid-cap exposure. FSKAX tracks the broader Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index and so it owns many more mid-caps and small-caps (VOO data as of 1/6/2023, FSKAX data as of 11/30/2022). In other words, VOO is a large-cap vehicle, while FSKAX is a total market vehicle. That being said, due to market cap weighting, both funds are overwhelmingly influenced by the large-cap holdings.

	VOO	FSKAX
Large-Cap	83%	73%
Mid-Cap	16%	19%
Small-Cap	0%	9%

Sector Weights

The sector weights between VOO and FSKAX are nearly identical (VOO data as of 1/6/2023, FSKAX data as of 11/30/2022).

	VOO	FSKAX
Basic Materials	2.40%	2.68%
Consumer Cyclical	10.17%	10.43%
Financial Services	13.75%	14.04%
Real Estate	2.76%	3.46%
Communication Services	7.46%	6.91%
Energy	5.13%	5.13%
Industrials	8.86%	9.58%
Technology	23.74%	23.18%
Consumer Defensive	7.40%	6.77%
Healthcare	15.32%	14.97%
Utilities	3.00%	2.87%

Factors To Consider

Transaction Costs

ETFs are free to trade at many brokers and custodians, including Fidelity. However, many brokers and custodians still charge commissions and/or transaction fees to buy/sell mutual funds. To my knowledge, Fidelity does not participate in the pay-to-play arrangements that would allow their mutual funds to trade for free on many platforms. So if an investor account is at Fidelity, it is free to trade FSKAX or VOO. However, only VOO is free to trade in non-Fidelity accounts.

There is a bid-ask spread when trading ETFs, but this spread is typically less than .01% for VOO and individual investor trades will not generally be large enough to “move” the market. In the case of VOO, individual investors should not have a problem trading.

Tax Efficiency

ETFs are typically more tax-efficient than mutual funds, due to their ability to avoid realizing capital gains through like-kind redemptions (a process that is beyond the scope of this post).

FSKAX does make capital gain distributions, while VOO has never made a capital gain distribution. VOO is the more tax-efficient option in this case.

Tax Loss Harvesting

My personal preference is to keep a portfolio entirely mutual funds or entirely ETFs, due to the mechanics of settlement during tax loss harvesting. If an ETF has declined in value and an investor sells it, the trade and cash proceeds will not settle for two business days (T+2). That investor may want to “replace” the sold ETF immediately and attempt to buy another ETF or mutual fund simultaneously.

However, mutual funds settle on T+1 basis, so cash for the mutual purchase would be due in one business day (which is one day earlier than the cash from the ETF sale is received). This can obviously cause problems and (even though this issue can be addressed with careful planning) I find it easier to keep accounts invested in similar vehicles. In this case, if a portfolio is all mutual funds, I might lean more towards FSKAX. If all ETFs, I might lean more towards VOO.

Tradability

FSKAX does not have a minimum for initial or additional purchases. The minimum purchase size for VOO is typically one share, although fractional shares are becoming more common.

Investors can trade ETFs intraday, as well as in the pre-market and after-hours trading sessions. Investors can only buy/sell mutual funds once per day. This is not necessarily a major factor for long-term investors however.

Final Thoughts: FSKAX vs VOO

Both VOO and FSKAX are large, core funds sponsored and managed by Vanguard and Fidelity respectively. Although VOO is more of a large-cap ETF and FSKAX is a total market mutual fund, performance has been pretty close. I view these two funds as essentially interchangeable and would not spend too much energy trying to decide which one is “better.” However, there are some situations that may call for one fund versus another.

State Street’s SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) and the Fidelity Total Stock Market Index fund (FSKAX) are two of the largest funds in existence and easily two of the most popular among individual investors. SPY and FSKAX are the core of many investor portfolios and many investors compare FSKAX vs SPY in order to decide which should be the foundation of their portfolio.

A quick reminder that this site does NOT provide investment recommendations. Fund comparisons (such as this one) are not conducted to identify the “best” fund (since that will vary from investor to investor based on investor-specific factors). Rather, these fund comparison posts are designed to identify and distinguish between the fund details that matter versus the ones that don’t.

The Short Answer

The main difference between SPY and FSKAX is that SPY is a large- and mid-cap ETF, while FSKAX is a total market mutual fund. Despite these differences, the total return between these two funds is nearly identical and I consider them interchangeable for all intents and purposes.

The Long Answer

Historical Performance: FSKAX vs SPY

SPY was the first ETF ever launched in the US (January 1993), while FSKAX was launched on September 9, 2011 (although other shares classes of the fund existed prior to that). Since then SPY has outperformed by nearly a half percent annually. Despite variations in the size factor performance over the decades, the long-term performance between these two funds is incredibly similar. The cumulative difference in performance is only about 15% over the past 11 years.

Of course, the outperformance of SPY is reflective of large-cap stocks’ dominance over the past decade. If mid-caps and/or small-caps lead, then I suspect FSKAX would outperform.

Differences between FSKAX vs SPY

The biggest difference between SPY and FSKAX is the market cap exposure of the funds. SPY tracks the S&P 500 index which includes mostly large-caps and some mid-caps, while FSKAX covers much more of the market by including more mid-caps and small-caps.

Geographic Exposure

Both SPY and FSKAX hold essentially 100% stocks, so I will not dig into country exposures or market classification here. For intents and purposes, the two funds have identical exposures.

Market Cap Exposure

SPY focuses on the S&P 500 index and so it mostly holds large-caps with a bit of mid-cap exposure. FSKAX tracks the broader Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index and so it owns many more mid-caps and small-caps (SPY data as of 1/6/2023, FSKAX data as of 11/30/2022). In other words, SPY is a large-cap vehicle, while FSKAX is a total market vehicle. That being said, due to market cap weighting, both funds are overwhelmingly influenced by the large-cap holdings.

	SPY	FSKAX
Large-Cap	84%	73%
Mid-Cap	16%	19%
Small-Cap	0%	9%

Sector Weights

The sector weights between SPY and FSKAX are nearly identical (SPY data as of 1/6/2023, FSKAX data as of 11/30/2022).

	SPY	FSKAX
Basic Materials	2.51%	2.68%
Consumer Cyclical	9.64%	10.43%
Financial Services	14.20%	14.04%
Real Estate	2.81%	3.46%
Communication Services	7.44%	6.91%
Energy	5.16%	5.13%
Industrials	9.11%	9.58%
Technology	22.62%	23.18%
Consumer Defensive	7.65%	6.77%
Healthcare	15.72%	14.97%
Utilities	3.15%	2.87%

Factors To Consider

Transaction Costs

ETFs are free to trade at many brokers and custodians, including Fidelity. However, many brokers and custodians still charge commissions and/or transaction fees to buy/sell mutual funds. To my knowledge, Fidelity does not participate in the pay-to-play arrangements that would allow their mutual funds to trade for free on many platforms. So if an investor account is at Fidelity, it is free to trade FSKAX or SPY. However, only SPY is free to trade in non-Fidelity accounts.

There is a bid-ask spread when trading ETFs, but this spread is typically less than .01% for SPY and individual investor trades will not generally be large enough to “move” the market. In the case of SPY, individual investors should not have a problem trading.

Tax Efficiency

ETFs are typically more tax-efficient than mutual funds, due to their ability to avoid realizing capital gains through like-kind redemptions (a process that is beyond the scope of this post).

FSKAX does make capital gain distributions, while SPY has not made a capital gain distribution since 1996. SPY is the more tax-efficient option in this case.

Tax Loss Harvesting

My personal preference is to keep a portfolio entirely mutual funds or entirely ETFs, due to the mechanics of settlement during tax loss harvesting. If an ETF has declined in value and an investor sells it, the trade and cash proceeds will not settle for two business days (T+2). That investor may want to “replace” the sold ETF immediately and attempt to buy another ETF or mutual fund simultaneously.

However, mutual funds settle on T+1 basis, so cash for the mutual purchase would be due in one business day (which is one day earlier than the cash from the ETF sale is received). This can obviously cause problems and (even though this issue can be addressed with careful planning) I find it easier to keep accounts invested in similar vehicles. In this case, if a portfolio is all mutual funds, I might lean more towards FSKAX. If all ETFs, I might lean more towards SPY.

Tradability

FSKAX does not have a minimum for initial or additional purchases. The minimum purchase size for SPY is typically one share, although fractional shares are becoming more common.

Investors can trade ETFs intraday, as well as in the pre-market and after-hours trading sessions. Investors can only buy/sell mutual funds once per day. This is not necessarily a major factor for long-term investors however.

Final Thoughts: FSKAX vs SPY

Both SPY and FSKAX are large, core funds sponsored and managed by State Street and Fidelity respectively. Although SPY is more of a large-cap ETF and FSKAX is a total market mutual fund, performance has been pretty close. I view these two funds as essentially interchangeable and would not spend too much energy trying to decide which one is “better.” However, there are some situations that may call for one fund versus another.

The Schwab S&P 500 Index mutual fund (SWPPX) and the Fidelity Total Stock Market Index fund (FSKAX) are two of the largest mutual funds in existence. SWPPX and FSKAX are the core of many investor portfolios. Many investors compare SWPPX vs FSKAX in order to decide which should be the foundation of their portfolio.

A quick reminder that this site does NOT provide investment recommendations. Fund comparisons (such as this one) are not conducted to identify the “best” fund (since that will vary from investor to investor based on investor-specific factors). Rather, these fund comparison posts are designed to identify and distinguish between the fund details that matter versus the ones that don’t.

The Short Answer

The main difference between SWPPX and FSKAX is that SWPPX is a large- and mid-cap fund, while FSKAX is a total market fund. Despite these differences, the total return between these two funds is pretty close.

The Long Answer

Historical Performance: SWPPX vs FSKAX

SWPPX was launched on May 19, 1997, while FSKAX was launched a year later on September 8, 2011 (although other shares classes of the fund existed prior to that). Since then, SWPPX has outperformed by about a half percent annually. This is not a huge performance differential, but it does compound over time. The cumulative difference between the two funds since common inception is just over 16%.

Of course, the outperformance of SWPPX is reflective of large-cap stocks’ dominance over the past decade. If mid-caps and/or small-caps lead, then I suspect FSKAX would outperform.

Differences between SWPPX vs FSKAX

The biggest difference between SWPPX and FSKAX is the market cap exposure of the funds. SWPPX tracks the S&P 500 index which includes mostly large-caps and some mid-caps, while FSKAX covers much more of the market by including more mid-caps and small-caps.

Geographic Exposure

Both SWPPX and FSKAX hold essentially 100% stocks, so I will not dig into country exposures or market classification here. For intents and purposes, the two funds have identical exposures.

Market Cap Exposure

SWPPX focuses on the S&P 500 index and so it mostly holds large-caps with a bit of mid-cap exposure. FSKAX tracks the broader Dow Jones U.S. Total Stock Market Index and so it owns many more mid-caps and small-caps (as of 11/30/2022). In other words, SWPPX is a large-cap vehicle, while FSKAX is a total market vehicle. That being said, due to market cap weighting, both funds are overwhelmingly influenced by the large-cap holdings.

	SWPPX	FSKAX
Large-Cap	83%	73%
Mid-Cap	16%	19%
Small-Cap	0%	9%

Sector Weights

The sector weights between SWPPX and FSKAX are nearly identical, as of 11/30/2022. The weights are within 1% for every single sector.

	SWPPX	FSKAX
Basic Materials	2.40%	2.68%
Consumer Cyclical	10.16%	10.43%
Financial Services	13.80%	14.04%
Real Estate	2.77%	3.46%
Communication Services	7.46%	6.91%
Energy	5.12%	5.13%
Industrials	8.86%	9.58%
Technology	23.72%	23.18%
Consumer Defensive	7.40%	6.77%
Healthcare	15.31%	14.97%
Utilities	2.99%	2.87%

Transaction Costs

Many brokers and custodians still charge commissions and/or transaction fees to buy/sell mutual funds. To my knowledge, neither Fidelity nor Schwab participates in the pay-to-play arrangements (with their competitor custodians) that would allow their mutual funds to trade for free on many platforms. So if an investor account is at Fidelity, it is generally free to trade FXAIX; similarly, SWPPX is generally free to trade at Schwab.

It is worth noting that neither fund has a minimum for initial or additional investments. That being said, investors looking for free trades may want to consider an a total market ETF or large-cap ETF, rather than FSKAX or SWPPX.

Expenses

Some investors may point out that the expense ratios between FSKAX and SWPPX differ. This is true, but it is also reflected in the net performance chart above. At a certain level, differences in expense ratio do not matter that much. In this case, the difference in expenses is fractions of a hundredth of a percent, so no need to compare or split hairs.

Tax Efficiency & Capital Gain Distributions

Both funds have made capital gains distributions in the past and will likely make them in the future. It is not possible to say which one will be more tax-efficient in the future. As index funds, the tax drag on both funds is very low. However, tax-sensitive taxable investors may want to consider using an ETF in lieu of either of these funds.

Final Thoughts: SWPPX vs FSKAX

Both SWPPX and FSKAX are large, core funds sponsored and managed by some of the largest asset managers in the world (Schwab and Fidelity). Beyond market cap exposures, the funds appear and act very similar. Long-term performance has been nearly identical. I view these two funds as essentially interchangeable and would not spend too much energy splitting hairs to decide which one is “better.”

One consideration that might tip the scales is where the investors’ account is. Unlike ETFs, many mutual funds are still subject to trading fees and/or short-term redemption fees. So if my accounts were at Schwab, I might lean more towards SWPPX. If my accounts were at Fidelity, I might favor FSKAX. But overall, these two funds are very similar and I wouldn’t worry too much about picking the “right” one.

The Fidelity S&P 500 Index Fund (FXAIX) and the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund (VFIAX) are two of the largest S&P 500 index mutual funds in existence and easily two of the most popular among individual investors. Both FXAIX and VFIAX track the well-known S&P 500 index and form the core of many investor portfolios. Many investors compare FXAIX vs VFIAX in order to decide which should be the foundation of their portfolio.

A quick reminder that this site does NOT provide investment recommendations. Fund comparisons (such as this one) are not conducted to identify the “best” fund (since that will vary from investor to investor based on investor-specific factors). Rather, these fund comparison posts are designed to identify and distinguish between the fund details that matter versus the ones that don’t.

The Short Answer

There are not many differences between FXAIX and VFIAX. Therefore, investors should consider factors beyond the underlying portfolios (which are essentially identical) in order to decide which fund is best for them.

The Long Answer

Historical Performance: FXAIX vs VFIAX

FXAIX was launched on February 17, 1988, while VFIAX was launched on November 13, 2000. Since then the two funds have performed identically, with a difference of just .03% annually! The cumulative performance difference between these two funds has been less than 2% (over a two decade timeframe)! Thus, from a performance perspective, I would consider these two funds interchangeable.

Differences between FXAIX vs VFIAX

Both FXAIX and VFIAX track the S&P 500, so I will not delve into differences in geographic exposures, sector weights, or market cap coverage. For all intents and purposes, the portfolios are identical with 504 stocks each. The S&P 500 has more than 500 stocks because of the index constituents have multiple share classes of stock (such as GOOG and GOOGL).

Factors to Consider

Expenses

Some investors may point out that the expense ratios between FXAIX and VFIAX differ. This is true, but it is also reflected in the net performance chart above. At a certain level, differences in expense ratio do not matter that much. In this case, the difference in annualized performance is equal to the difference in expense ratio. Since these funds are identical, I would most likely lean towards VFIAX although getting the allocation is more important than selecting the “right” fund.

Transaction Costs

Many brokers and custodians still charge commissions and/or transaction fees to buy/sell mutual funds. To my knowledge, Fidelity does not participate in the pay-to-play arrangements (with their competitor custodians) that would allow their mutual funds to trade for free on many platforms. So if an investor account is at Fidelity, it is generally free to trade FXAIX.

Similarly, Vanguard does not participate in pay-to-play arrangements, so VFIAX trades are likely to incur a fee at any custodian besides Vanguard.

Investors looking for free trades may want to consider an S&P 500 ETF, such as VOO, SPY, SPLG, or IVV.

Tax Efficiency & Capital Gain Distributions

FXAIX has made capital gains distributions in the past and I would expect this to continue in future. VFIAX has not made a capital gain distribution since 2000 and I do not expect it to in the future due to the way that Vanguard structures its ETFs. Thus, tax-sensitive investors may favor VFIAX or an S&P 500 ETF.

Tax Loss Harvesting

Investors may want to avoid using these two funds as tax loss harvesting substitutes for one another since they could be considered “substantially identical.”

Tradability

FXAIX does not have a stated minimum for purchases, although some brokerages (especially competitors of Fidelity) impose minimums. The minimum purchase size for VFIAX is $3,000, regardless of where it is bought or sold.

Final Thoughts: FXAIX vs VFIAX

Both FXAIX and VFIAX are large, core funds sponsored and managed by Fidelity and Vanguard respectively. Performance has been nearly identical. I view these two funds as essentially interchangeable and would not spend too much energy trying to decide which one is “better.”

However, there are some situations that may call for one fund versus another. So I might select FXAIX or VFIAX solely based on where my account is held and whether I’m investing taxable vs retirement dollars. Despite these considerations, these two funds are very similar for all intents and purposes.