What is the main difference between the categories of FBND and SCHZ?

FBND is classified as an Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund, while SCHZ is an Intermediate Core Bond fund. The 'Core' designation typically implies a focus on high-quality, investment-grade bonds, often including government and corporate debt. The 'Core-Plus' label for FBND suggests it may include a broader range of bond types or slightly higher risk assets to potentially enhance returns. Investors should understand that these categories indicate different strategic approaches to fixed income exposure, influencing the types of securities held within each portfolio. This structural difference is fundamental to interpreting the performance and risk profiles of the two funds.

How do expense ratios affect long-term bond ETF returns?

The expense ratio is an annual fee deducted from a fund's assets, directly impacting net returns. SCHZ has an expense ratio of 0.03%, significantly lower than FBND's 0.36%. Over time, this 0.33 percentage point difference can compound, meaning investors in the higher-fee fund may retain less of their gross returns. For example, on a $10,000 investment, the annual fee difference is $33. While bond returns are often lower than equity returns, fees represent a larger relative drag. Investors must weigh whether the potential benefits of a higher-fee fund, such as specific strategies or yields, outweigh the guaranteed cost savings of a lower-fee alternative.

Which fund has a higher dividend yield and why does it matter?

FBND currently offers a higher dividend yield of 4.77% compared to SCHZ's 4.26%. This difference of 0.51 percentage points means that, all else being equal, FBND generates more cash flow per dollar invested. For income-focused investors, this higher yield can be attractive for generating regular cash payments. However, a higher yield may also reflect different underlying bond risks or strategies. Investors should not look at yield in isolation but consider it alongside the fund's expense ratio and overall risk profile. The source of this yield—whether from coupon payments or price fluctuations—is also critical to understand for sustainable income planning.

How do the net asset sizes of FBND and SCHZ compare?

FBND holds significantly more in net assets, with $28.2 billion compared to SCHZ's $10.6 billion. Generally, a larger asset base can indicate greater liquidity and stability, as there are more shares available for trading without impacting the price. However, both funds have substantial assets that support adequate liquidity for most individual investors. A larger fund like FBND might have more flexibility in certain trading strategies but could also face challenges in deploying new cash into attractive opportunities. Investors should consider that while size offers some comfort, it does not guarantee performance or lower volatility, especially in fixed-income markets.

What does the lack of available index data imply for these ETFs?

For both FBND and SCHZ, the specific index tracked is listed as 'not available' in the provided data. This means investors cannot easily compare the benchmark methodologies or exact constituent weights against the funds' actual holdings. Without this transparency, assessing how closely each fund replicates its intended strategy or comparing them to other benchmarks becomes difficult. Investors may rely more on the fund manager's active discretion or the general category description. This opacity requires a higher degree of trust in the provider and may necessitate looking at additional resources or holdings reports to understand the precise investment exposure.

How do the inception dates affect the track records of these funds?

SCHZ has a longer track record, having launched on 14 July 2011, compared to FBND, which launched on 6 October 2014. This provides SCHZ with an additional three years of historical performance data. A longer track record allows investors to observe how the fund has behaved over more market cycles, including various interest rate environments. While FBND's twelve-year history is still substantial, SCHZ's thirteen-year history offers a slightly broader sample for performance analysis. Investors should note that past performance is not indicative of future results, but a longer operational history can provide more context for evaluating consistency and management experience.

Do FBND and SCHZ hold the same top securities?

Based on the provided data, there are no shared top-10 holdings between FBND and SCHZ. This indicates that the specific securities each fund holds to achieve its bond exposure differ significantly. The lack of overlap suggests that while both are bond funds, they may have different active management decisions, security selections, or sector tilts. Investors should be aware that even funds with similar labels can have divergent underlying portfolios. Without detailed holdings data, it is challenging to ascertain the exact composition, but the absence of common top holdings highlights distinct portfolio construction strategies.

Why is transparency in sector weights important for bond funds?

Sector weights reveal how a bond fund's assets are allocated across different parts of the bond market, such as government, corporate, mortgage-backed, or other sectors. For both FBND and SCHZ, sector weight data is currently 'not available'. This lack of disclosure hinders investors from assessing concentration risks, duration exposure by sector, or credit quality distribution. Understanding these weights is crucial for evaluating how sensitive a fund might be to economic changes, such as interest rate hikes or credit spreads widening. Without this information, investors must rely on general category descriptions, which may not capture the nuanced risk profile of the fund's actual portfolio.

How should investors interpret the 'not available' holding data?

When top holdings and sector weights are 'not available', as they are for both FBND and SCHZ in this dataset, investors face a transparency gap. Practically, this means one cannot perform detailed due diligence on the specific bonds held, their credit ratings, or maturity profiles. Investors might need to consult the fund provider's official website or recent quarterly reports for more detailed information. Relying solely on aggregated data like yield and expense ratio may be insufficient for those seeking precise risk control. This requires an acknowledgment of higher informational uncertainty when making comparison decisions based on this specific data snapshot.

Which fund might align better with a low-cost passive strategy?

SCHZ, with an expense ratio of 0.03%, is typically more aligned with investors seeking a low-cost, passive bond exposure. FBND, at 0.36%, carries a notably higher fee. If an investor's primary goal is minimising costs while maintaining broad intermediate bond market exposure, SCHZ offers a cheaper structure. However, FBND's 'Core-Plus' category and higher yield might appeal to those comfortable with slightly higher fees for potentially different risk-return characteristics. Investors should evaluate if the cost savings justify the potential difference in yield or strategy. This choice depends on individual priorities regarding cost efficiency versus desired income or strategic tilt. This page is for educational purposes only and not financial advice.

FBND vs SCHZ

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

Compare Fidelity Total Bond ETF (FBND) and Schwab US Aggregate Bond ETF (SCHZ). This page examines expense ratios, dividends, holdings and index focus. FBND tracks the intermediate core-plus bond market, while SCHZ focuses on the intermediate core bond market. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

FBND

Metric

SCHZ

0.36%

Expense Ratio

0.03%

4.77%

Dividend Yield

4.26%

$28.23B

Net Assets

$10.61B

4,777

Holdings

12,535

Oct 6, 2014

Inception Date

Jul 14, 2011

–

Index Tracked

–

Intermediate Core-Plus Bond

Fund Category

Intermediate Core Bond

SCHZ costs about $33.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

These funds do not share any of their top holdings.

Discover More Comparisons

FBND vs FIGB

Compare FBND and FIGB on fees, dividends, and structure. Both show 0.36% expense ratios. FBND holds $28.2b; FIGB has $650m. Track distinct bond strategies.

FBND vs IUSB

Compare FBND vs IUSB on fees, holdings, yields, and tracking methods to decide which core-plus bond ETF suits your research needs and portfolio.

SCHO vs SCHZ

Compare SCHO and SCHZ ETFs. Both charge 0.03% fees. SCHO offers 3.83% yield; SCHZ provides 4.26% yield. Note missing index and holding data.

Investment Analysis

FBND

Pros

FBND delivers a 4.77% dividend yield, significantly outpacing the SCHZ’s 4.26%.
It holds a substantial $28.2 billion in net assets, ensuring high liquidity for investors.
Launched in October 2014, it offers a relatively long track record of 12 years.

Considerations

The expense ratio of 0.36% is considerably higher than the SCHZ’s 0.03%.
The index methodology is not available, obscuring the precise investment strategy and risk profile.
Sector weights and top holdings are not available, limiting transparency into portfolio composition.

SCHZ

Pros

SCHZ charges an expense ratio of 0.03%, representing a low-cost option for bond investors.
It was launched on July 14, 2011, providing the longest available performance track record.
The fund’s $10.6 billion in net assets supports adequate liquidity for active trading.

Considerations

A dividend yield of 4.26% is lower than the 4.77% yield offered by FBND.
The index tracked is not available, which may reduce clarity for benchmark-focused investors.
Lack of disclosure for top holdings or sector weights hinders detailed portfolio analysis.

About FBND and SCHZ

FBND (FBND)

The Fidelity Total Bond ETF (FBND) is an intermediate core-plus bond fund that seeks to provide a diversified source of income. It holds thousands of investment-grade bonds, covering government, corporate and other debt types, with the aim of balancing income potential and risk. Because it focuses on bonds, its value can rise and fall with interest rates and credit conditions; if rates move, bond prices often react. As a general educational point, bond ETFs can help spread risk across many holdings, but they are not guaranteed to perform like cash or savings. Investors should consider their time horizon and tolerance for price swings, as returns are not assured. Suitability depends on individual circumstances and overall portfolio goals.

SCHZ (SCHZ)

The Schwab US Aggregate Bond ETF (SCHZ) is a popular investment vehicle designed to provide broad exposure to the US investment-grade fixed-income market. It aims to track the performance of a diversified basket of bonds, including US government, corporate, and mortgage-backed securities. By holding thousands of individual bonds, this ETF helps spread risk across different issuers and sectors. Investors often consider this fund as a core component of a balanced portfolio, seeking steady income and lower volatility compared to equities. With a very low expense ratio, it offers a cost-effective way to access the bond market. However, like all bond funds, its value can fluctuate with changes in interest rates and credit conditions, meaning returns are not guaranteed.

Buy FBND or SCHZ 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.

FBND vs SCHZ

Fund Snapshot