What is the primary difference in methodology between Dimensional and Schwab?

DFIV uses a value methodology targeting international firms with attractive relative valuations, while FNDF employs fundamental indexing, a rules-based approach that differs from standard market-cap weighting. This distinction means they select holdings based on different metrics: DFIV focuses on valuation factors, whereas FNDF weights companies by fundamental measures like assets or sales. Understanding these methodologies helps investors grasp how each fund aims to capture value in international markets, even though both are classified as Foreign Large Value funds with different operational approaches to equity selection.

Why does the inception date matter when comparing these two ETFs?

DFIV was launched in April 1999, providing a well-established historical performance record of over two decades. In contrast, FNDF began in August 2013, offering a shorter track record. While a longer history allows investors to review performance across various market cycles, it does not guarantee future results. FNDF's newer status reflects the evolution of fundamental indexing strategies. Investors should consider that DFIV's longevity offers more data points for analysis, whereas FNDF's strategy is more recent, requiring an understanding of how newer methodologies perform in changing economic environments.

What does 'Foreign Large Value' indicate about these funds?

Both DFIV and FNDF fall under the Foreign Large Value category, meaning they invest in established companies outside the United States that are considered undervalued relative to their fundamentals. This classification suggests a focus on mature international businesses rather than growth-oriented or small-cap stocks. While they share this category label, their internal selection processes differ significantly. The category helps beginners understand the general risk and return profile, indicating exposure to developed and emerging markets with a bias towards value factors, regardless of the specific fund provider or indexing method used.

How do the expense ratios of DFIV and FNDF compare?

FNDF has a lower expense ratio at 0.25%, compared to DFIV's 0.27%. This 0.02 percentage point difference may seem small, but over long investment horizons, lower fees can improve net returns. Both funds are cost-efficient relative to actively managed portfolios. However, investors should weigh these minor fee differences against the distinct methodologies. A slightly higher cost might be acceptable if an investor prefers DFIV's long-standing value approach, while cost-conscious investors might lean toward FNDF's fundamental indexing strategy based purely on fee structures and expected operational efficiency.

What are the dividend yields for these international equity ETFs?

FNDF currently offers a higher dividend yield of 2.96%, whereas DFIV provides a yield of 2.57%. These distributions are part of the total return but vary based on the underlying holdings' payout policies. The higher yield in FNDF may appeal to income-focused investors, though yields can fluctuate. It is crucial to remember that dividends are not guaranteed and depend on the financial health of the international companies held. Investors should consider total return potential rather than focusing solely on the immediate yield difference between these two funds.

Do these funds have overlapping top holdings?

Based on the available data, there are no shared top-10 holdings between DFIV and FNDF. DFIV lists SHEL at 3.34% and BP at 0.98%, while FNDF's specific top holdings are not currently available for transparency assessment. This lack of overlap suggests that despite both being in the Foreign Large Value category, they hold distinctly different baskets of stocks. Investors should verify the current holdings lists independently to understand the concentration risks and specific companies included in each fund's portfolio, as the provided data does not show commonality in their top positions.

Which fund might suit a cost-sensitive long-term investor?

FNDF may appeal to cost-sensitive investors due to its slightly lower expense ratio of 0.25% compared to DFIV's 0.27%. Over time, this 0.02% difference compounds, potentially enhancing net returns. However, FNDF has a shorter inception date since 2013, meaning less historical data compared to DFIV's 1999 start. The choice depends on whether an investor prioritises minimal costs and a fundamental indexing approach, or values the longer operational scale and established track record of Dimensional's methodology. Both offer strong liquidity with substantial net assets.

How do asset sizes impact the liquidity of these ETFs?

FNDF has net assets of $26.4 billion, slightly larger than DFIV's $22.2 billion. Both figures indicate robust scale and strong liquidity, which helps ensure tighter bid-ask spreads for traders. Large asset bases generally signal investor confidence and operational stability. For beginners, this means both funds are likely to handle large transactions efficiently without significant price impact. While FNDF's marginally higher asset count provides additional liquidity buffer, both are substantial enough for most individual and institutional investors to enter or exit positions without major execution concerns.

What does the lack of index tracking details imply?

For both DFIV and FNDF, the specific index tracked is listed as not available. This limits the ability to verify the exact benchmark used for performance comparison. In the absence of transparent index details, investors must rely on the fund descriptions—value methodology for DFIV and fundamental indexing for FNDF—to understand exposure. This opacity requires careful examination of holdings and sector weights to infer how each fund deviates from standard market-cap weighted indices, impacting how one assesses true market exposure versus active-like strategies.

How do sector exposures compare for these international funds?

Sector weights are not available for either DFIV or FNDF in the provided data. Without this breakdown, it is difficult to compare their exposure to specific industries like technology, healthcare, or financials. Investors typically use sector weights to assess diversification and concentration risks. The absence of this data for both funds means that anyone considering these ETFs must look beyond the top holdings and consult direct fund sources for detailed sector allocation. This gap highlights the importance of verifying full portfolio composition before making investment decisions.

What should investors verify before choosing between these ETFs?

Investors should verify current holdings, sector weights, and index details, as some are listed as not available in the provided data. Checking the fund providers' websites for real-time portfolios is essential. Additionally, consider the tax implications of international dividends and the specific value factors each fund emphasises. Since DFIV and FNDF show no overlap in listed top holdings, understanding each fund's unique composition is critical. Educational content only; always conduct independent research or consult a qualified advisor to ensure the choice aligns with personal financial goals and risk tolerance.

DFIV vs FNDF

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

Compare Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV) and Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF (FNDF). This page examines fees, holdings, dividends and how each fund tracks its market. DFIV has a 0.27% expense ratio, while FNDF is 0.25%. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

DFIV

Metric

FNDF

0.27%

Expense Ratio

0.25%

2.57%

Dividend Yield

2.96%

$22.16B

Net Assets

$26.38B

609

Holdings

905

Apr 16, 1999

Inception Date

Aug 15, 2013

–

Index Tracked

–

Foreign Large Value

Fund Category

Foreign Large Value

FNDF costs about $2.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

These funds do not share any of their top holdings.

Discover More Comparisons

DFIV vs VXUS

Compare DFIV vs VXUS on fees, holdings and dividends. DFIV charges 0.27% with a 2.57% yield; VXUS charges 0.05% with a 2.28% yield for broad access.

DFIV vs VEA

Compare DFIV and VEA ETFs. Review 0.27% and 0.03% expense ratios, 2.57% and 2.35% dividend yields, holdings, and tracking to decide which fund to research.

DFIV vs VYMI

Compare DFIV and VYMI ETFs. Review expense ratios, dividend yields, and tracking methods for these international value funds to inform research.

Investment Analysis

DFIV

Pros

Dimensional's value methodology targets international firms with attractive relative valuations.
With $22.2 billion in assets, the fund exhibits strong liquidity and operational scale.
A long inception date since 1999 indicates a well-established historical performance record.

Considerations

The 0.27% expense ratio is marginally higher than some competing index funds.
The dividend yield of 2.57% is slightly lower than the comparative fund's payout.
Specific index tracking details are not available for independent methodology verification.

FNDF

Pros

Schwab's fundamental indexing offers a rules-based approach distinct from market-cap weighting.
The fund's lower expense ratio of 0.25% improves cost-efficiency for long-term investors.
With $26.4 billion in net assets, it demonstrates robust scale and liquidity.

Considerations

Specific top holdings are not currently available for transparency assessment.
Index tracking methodology details are not available for external verification.
The fund's inception date in 2013 provides a shorter historical track record than the other fund.

About DFIV and FNDF

DFIV (DFIV)

The Dimensional International Value ETF (DFIV) offers investors exposure to developed and emerging markets outside the United States and Canada. This fund focuses on companies in international markets that appear to be trading at lower valuations relative to their peers, often referred to as 'value' stocks. By investing in a diversified basket of hundreds of holdings, DFIV aims to capture the potential long-term returns associated with the value investment style while spreading risk across various sectors and regions. It provides a way to diversify a portfolio beyond domestic assets. However, international investing carries unique risks, including currency fluctuations and geopolitical events. The fund’s expense ratio is moderate, and it may distribute income. As with any investment, values can rise and fall, and past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

FNDF (FNDF)

The Schwab Fundamental International Equity ETF (FNDF) is a foreign large value fund designed to provide investors with exposure to international markets based on fundamental measures rather than just market capitalisation. By focusing on large non-US companies, it aims to track performance through metrics like cash flow, book value, revenue, and dividends. Launched in August 2013, the fund holds 905 positions and currently manages approximately USD 26.38 billion in assets. With a competitive expense ratio of 0.25% and a dividend yield of 2.96%, it offers a cost-effective way to diversify portfolios globally. Investors should remember that international investments carry currency risk and geopolitical factors, and while the fundamental approach seeks potential long-term value, capital values can fall as well as rise, meaning returns are not guaranteed.

Buy DFIV or FNDF in Nemo

🆓

Zero Commission

Trade stocks, ETFs, and more with zero commission. Keep more of your returns.

🔒

Trusted & Regulated

Part of Exinity Group 2015, serving over a million customers globally.

💰

6% Interest on Cash

Earn 6% AER on uninvested cash with daily interest payments.

DFIV vs FNDF

Fund Snapshot