Which is why we say that an S&P 500 fund is a reasonable approximation for a "total stock" fund, for those without access to a total stock fund. The "difference" that those extra thousands of stocks make - in a "market weighted" fund - is arguably negligible (as they get dwarfed by the "market weight" of the bigger stocks).Imagine two funds, one of which invests 100% of its funds into 100 stocks, and the second which invests 95% of its funds into those same 100 stocks, at the same ratios, and invests the other 5% into 1,000 other stocks.I saw some of those zero funds have fewer holdings, less small cap, emerging markets but not sure this matters for returns?
The second fund has 11x as many holdings as the first fund. Yet, the difference in performance over time between the two funds will likely be inconsequential.
The "zero" Fidelity funds sorta fall in between the two - more holdings than a S&P 500 but less than something like VTI. But as arcticpineapplecorp posted, the results are nearly identical to Vanguard over the last few years.
Personally, I happily exclusively use the "zero" funds in all my tax-advantaged accounts (at least those at Fidelity). I will not use them in taxable accounts - mostly because of their lack of portability (can only be held at Fidelity - while ETFs can usually be moved without tax-impact anywhere) but also to avoid any potential accidental wash sales (by never holding the same fund in both taxable and tax-advantaged).
Statistics: Posted by SnowBog — Sun Dec 07, 2025 1:10 am — Replies 11 — Views 903