Vanguard Vs. Fidelity Index Funds: Which Is Best For Your Investments In 2025?
Vanguard and Fidelity offer popular index funds with competitive expense ratios. Is one fund family better for your investment portfolio than the other? This detailed comparison of Vanguard and Fidelity index funds—covering fees, performance and selection—helps you decide.
Vanguard Index Funds Overview
One fun fact sums up Vanguard's investment philosophy: Under the direction of company founder John Bogle, Vanguard created the world's first index fund in 1976. Bogle's innovation gave investors convenient access to a low-cost portfolio that could be held for decades.
Bogle also decided to market Vanguard funds directly to investors, bypassing brokers, and to eliminate sales loads. Both moves, unconventional in the 1970s, showed Vanguard's commitment to the individual investor's success. The move to drop sales charges has spared investors from hundreds of millions in fees over the past several decades.
Today, Vanguard retains its reputation as a leader in low-cost funds and a champion of retail investors.
Fidelity Index Funds Overview
According to Morningstar, Fidelity is the third-largest fund family after Vanguard and BlackRock in terms of U.S. market concentration. The company was formed to take over the Fidelity Fund in 1946 and launched its first index fund in 1988.
Fidelity's index fund strategy emphasizes low costs and fund performance that aligns closely to the target index. Both objectives benefit index fund investors by minimizing dilution of underlying investment returns.
Comparing Vanguard and Fidelity Index Funds
Below are head-to-head comparisons for Vanguard and Fidelity on expense ratios, fund selection, fund performance and minimum investment requirements.
Vanguard expense ratios on index funds with investment minimums of $3,000 or less range from 0.03% to 0.2%. Per author calculations, the average expense ratio is 0.07%, which equates to $7 annually for every $10,000 invested.
Fidelity expense ratios across 82 index funds for retail investors range from 0% to 0.4%. The average is 0.12%, per author calculations. This translates to $12 annually per $10,000 invested.
Vanguard has the lower average expense ratio, but Fidelity offers a selection of zero-expense funds. Also, Fidelity's S&P 500 fund, FXAIX, has lower expenses than Vanguard's S&P 500 portfolios. FXIAX charges 0.015%, while Vanguard's VOO ETF and VFAIX fund charge 0.03% and 0.04%, respectively.
Both companies beat broader expense ratio averages. A Morningstar report concludes that the average fees for passively managed funds in 2023 was 0.55%.
Vanguard has more index funds with low investment minimums than Fidelity, but both families cover these popular market segments:
Cryptocurrency is one point of differentiation and Fidelity has the edge. Fidelity has funds stocked with bitcoin (FBTC) and ethereum (FETH). Vanguard does not offer crypto funds.
Performance comparisons for index funds can be tricky because the underlying index is primarily responsible for defining the portfolio. So, the comparison is most telling when two funds are targeting the same index. In that case, sampling methods and trading efficiency can introduce a higher-than-necessary tracking error—causing one fund to underperform.
The table below compares returns for S&P 500 funds and U.S. bond market funds from both families. Fidelity performed slightly better on the S&P 500 fund and in the one-year period for the bond fund. Lower expense ratios on the two Fidelity mutual funds contribute to the outperformance.
More generalized comparisons can be made between funds that offer similar exposures but rely on different target indexes. The index gets most of the credit for outperformance, particularly when both compared funds have low tracking errors. Even so, the fund family can take responsibility for choosing the stronger index.
This table compares Vanguard and Fidelity funds with similar strategies, implemented through different target indexes. You can see the performance gaps are larger vs. the prior comparison. The Vanguard index funds mostly outperformed here, despite Fidelity's funds having lower expense ratios.
Both Vanguard and Fidelity have at least 80 index funds with a $0 or $1 investment minimum. These are predominantly exchange-traded funds. Vanguard additionally has about 50 mutual funds with a $3,000 minimum investment.
Which Is Better For Beginner Investors?
Both Vanguard and Fidelity are appropriate for beginner investors. Those who plan to own only an S&P 500 fund and a bond fund might earn slightly higher returns with Fidelity, thanks to the ultra-low expense ratios. On the other hand, Vanguard's website and fund research tools are somewhat easier to navigate than Fidelity's.
Fortunately, choosing one fund family doesn't mean you give up access to the other. If you are trading in a Vanguard brokerage account, you may pay extra fees to buy Fidelity mutual funds and vice versa. You can avoid the fees by purchasing ETFs instead or by opening a new account with the other fund family.
Expert Opinions And Analysis
Morningstar is a leading researcher of mutual funds and fund families. The company's Fund Family Digest summarizes research and ratings on the 150 largest fund families in the U.S.
According to the 2024 Fund Family Digest, Vanguard is the largest fund family with $8.5 trillion in U.S. assets under management (AUM). Fidelity is ranked third with $2.95 trillion in AUM.
Vanguard also has the highest Parent Rating by Morningstar Manager Research analysts. Only 10 fund families earn this rating, based on manager tenure, risk management, performance, fees and other factors. Additionally, 99% of Vanguard's assets are in share classes with Gold, Silver or Bronze Medalist Ratings. Morningstar analysts assign these ratings to funds that are expected to outperform their category index after fees.
Fidelity's parent rating is Above Average and 95% of its assets are in funds with Gold, Silver or Bronze Medalist Ratings.
Is Vanguard Or Fidelity Better For Your Investments?
Vanguard and Fidelity have sufficient index fund options to fulfill simple or complex investing strategies. Fidelity does have cryptocurrency funds, which may be an advantage if bitcoin or ethereum exposure is part of your allocation plan.
Vanguard has more assets under management and slightly higher Morningstar ratings, implying a more stable fund management team and better performance potential.
Bottom Line
You can implement many passive investment portfolios with Vanguard or Fidelity. To choose the right family, review Vanguard.com and Fidelity.com. See if one brand speaks to you over the other. If not, identify which exposures you'll invest in first, such as the S&P 500 or all U.S. stocks. Compare your options across the two families and select the one with lower tracking errors. That hopefully keeps much of the underlying investment returns flowing into your net worth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
17 minutes ago
- Fox News
Putin made a 'business pitch' to Trump in his statement: Edward Lawrence
FOX Business White House correspondent Edward Lawrence analyzes Russian President Vladimir Putin's 'business pitch' to President Donald Trump in Alaska.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
High Yield and Low Stress: 2 Dividend ETFs That Are Built for Passive Income
Key Points Statistical evidence supports the idea that these two ETFs can simultaneously grow capital and generate income. Maximum monthly drawdowns are less than the benchmark's performance, and so is the risk as defined by standard deviation. These ETFs do relatively best when benchmark indexes are highly volatile but still make money in bull markets. 10 stocks we like better than JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF › The JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF (NYSEMKT: JEPI) and JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF (NASDAQ: JEPQ) have garnered significant investor attention, in part due to their trailing-12-month dividend yields of 8.2% and 11.2%, respectively. Moreover, they offer monthly income, making them a favorite among passive income investors. As such, it would be interesting to share some modeling of their performance to see if they do offer investors a way to a relatively low-volatility strategy that practically guarantees a monthly income. (Keep in mind dividends can always be cut.) Introducing two JPMorgan ETFs The first thing to understand about these two exchange-traded funds is that they are not tailored to invest in dividend stocks. Instead, they both follow the same strategy of investing up to 80% of net assets in equities (stocks), with the only difference being that the Equity Premium ETF focuses on S&P 500 stocks while the Nasdaq Equity Premium ETF focuses on stocks in the Nasdaq-100. As noted above, the stocks are not explicitly selected for their dividend yield, an essential point because high-yield equity-focused ETFs often involve concentrating holdings in sectors with high yields. The remaining net assets, up to 20%, are invested in equity-linked notes (ELNs) that follow a strategy of selling call options on the indexes that the two ETFs benchmark -- S&P 500 and Nasdaq-100, respectively. A call option is the right to buy shares of the index at a specified price (the strike price) and is bought by bullish investors. The seller of the call options (in this case the ETF) receives a premium from the buyer. However, if the index increases significantly, the option is exercised, and the ELN typically incurs a loss. Conversely, when the index experiences a small gain, stays flat, or loses value, the option isn't exercised. The idea is that an anticipated net profit in premiums collected from the ELNs, combined with some dividend income from stock holdings, will generate sufficient income for distributions to be paid to shareholders under any condition, particularly in the event of a substantial increase in the index. And note that the upside is limited (gains less than the market), but the downside is also restricted. This table lays out how the portions of the ETFs will perform based on how the underlying index performs in a month. Monthly Index Performance Strong Gain Moderate Gain Moderate Loss Strong Loss Equities (At least 80% of the ETF assets) Strong Gain Gain Loss Strong Loss ELNs (Up to 20% of the ETF's assets) Loss Profit Profit Profit Overall Gain, but less than the market Gain, but less than the market Slight profit/slight loss Loss, but less than the market Author's analysis. What the ETFs need to do to demonstrate they work Before I throw charts at you, it's worth noting that the proof of the strategy working includes: The ETF should have a lower volatility than the index (measured here by the standard deviation of monthly returns). The ETFs should have relatively low maximum monthly drawdowns because passive investors usually do not want to lose a significant amount in any one month. The strategy should demonstrate a high coefficient of determination, or R^2, indicating that the independent variable (in this case, the benchmark index) is primarily responsible for determining the outcome. Performance consistent with the outcomes outlined in the table above. That said, here are the charts comparing the monthly index performance to the ETF's performance. Both sets of data include reinvestment of dividends. First, here's the JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF. And now the JPMorgan Nasdaq Equity Premium Income ETF. A few conclusions can be drawn from the data, along with some additional calculations. The monthly standard deviation of the S&P 500 over the period is 4.7%, compared to 3.1% for JEPI, indicating lower volatility returns. The monthly standard deviation of the Nasdaq-100 over the period is 5.7%, compared to 4.2% for JEPQ, indicating lower volatility returns. Both ETFs exhibit high R^2 values, indicating a consistency of outcome from the strategy. The three most significant monthly drawdowns for JEPI are -6.4%, -4.2%, and -4.1%. The three most significant monthly drawdowns for JEPQ are -8.7%, -6.8%, and -6.6%. In general, the strategy is effective, generating a collection of positive returns when the indices report moderate gains and losses. The downside is limited compared to the index when the market declines significantly, and the upside is limited when the indexes perform well. What it means to passive investors Both indices have performed very well over the periods, with an average monthly gain of 1.5% on the S&P 500 and 1.8% on the Nasdaq; therefore, the ETFs have understandably underperformed. However, there's no guarantee that these conditions will continue, and these ETFs have demonstrated lower volatility returns while maintaining substantial dividends for those seeking monthly income. As such, they are excellent options for those seeking to generate passive income across a range of market conditions. Should you invest $1,000 in JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF right now? Before you buy stock in JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $663,630!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,115,695!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,071% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 185% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 JPMorgan Chase is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends JPMorgan Chase. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. High Yield and Low Stress: 2 Dividend ETFs That Are Built for Passive Income was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Investors react to US-Russia summit reaching no deal
NEW YORK (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin did not reach an agreement to resolve Moscow's war in Ukraine after a nearly three-hour summit in Alaska, though he characterized the meeting as "very productive." "There were many, many points that we agreed on," Trump said at a joint press conference with Putin. "I would say a couple of big ones that we haven't quite got there, but we've made some headway. So there's no deal until there's a deal." COMMENTS: CAROL SCHLEIF, CHIEF MARKET STRATEGIST, BMO PRIVATE WEALTH, MINNEAPOLIS: "The only news was absolutely no news out of it. Not sure there will be any market impactful portions - geopolitical issues in general do not tend to preoccupy market attention for very long if at all." "Markets are at new highs despite this conflict going on for three years. Markets care more about consumers, inflation and commentary from Wyoming next week." MICHAEL ASHLEY SCHULMAN, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, RUNNING POINT, EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA "At this point, it has been three years into the war, so it really shouldn't have much effect. I think markets will take it as status quo, but I think there's only upside from here." ERIC TEAL, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, COMERICA, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA: "The fact that there were no economic sanctions is a positive and markets should breathe a sigh of relief, but it doesn't appear as though a deal is in hand." "If anything, we see opportunity in the energy sector, as oil prices are at pretty low levels here and the prospect of sanctions on oil did not bear out. There could be a relief rally and that would be an opportunity to invest in energy as we head into higher seasonal demands and economic growth beginning to re-accelerate." "Gold and precious metals are likely to sell off because of being an asset class good for safety. Given concerns about inflation, they are a good buying point as well if any weakness." EUGENE EPSTEIN, HEAD OF TRADING AND STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, NORTH AMERICA, MONEYCORP, NEW JERSEY: "I don't think anybody expected it to be particularly specific or substantive. It's essentially a first step towards potentially something more. They both kind of said everything diplomatically. But it's more about the significance of the meeting as a whole, as opposed to the content of what they're saying." "Again, I don't think anybody really expected them to suddenly within a couple of hours come up with a very specific set of plans or any kind of blueprint to something. It basically was just showing their willingness to have continued talks to arrive at a conclusion that is beneficial for all parties. And I think this is just the first steps, and many more to come." TOM DI GALOMA, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF RATES AND TRADING AT MISCHLER FINANCIAL IN PARK CITY, UTAH "Basically, President Trump needs to go back to the European Union and relay what Putin has said. And then he's got to negotiate with Zelenskiy. For the most part, I think they've laid the groundwork for a deal. And my feeling is that it will probably get done, but there's probably a couple more steps. I'm thinking one of those steps will be Trump, Putin and Zelinski all meeting in the next month." "They will probably reach a deal in 30 days. I was kind of surprised that they didn't take any questions. So there's a little bit of disappointment in that, but until a deal is done, you can't really take any questions." "Overall, the markets will like it marginally because I think they've made some progress. But I don't think we will be up 400 points in Dow futures on Sunday night." JAMIE COX, MANAGING PARTNER, HARRIS FINANCIAL GROUP, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: "Without Ukraine at the table, there was little chance for a peace accord. That Putin attended at all was significant, but he can't be seen ending the conflict while on American soil meeting with Trump." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
