Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement
FSNOX vs TCWHX
FSNOX vs TCWHX Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
FSNOX vs. TCWHX commentary
Jun 21, 2025
To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is FSNOX is a Hold and TCWHX is a Hold.
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
FSNOX has more cash in the bank: 12.6B vs. TCWHX (2.1B). TCWHX pays higher dividends than FSNOX: TCWHX (3.41) vs FSNOX (2.59). FSNOX was incepted earlier than TCWHX: FSNOX (8 years) vs TCWHX (10 years). TCWHX (0.62) is less costly to investors than FSNOX (0.49). FSNOX is a more actively managed with annual turnover of: 14.00 vs. TCWHX (12.00). FSNOX has a lower initial minimum investment than TCWHX: FSNOX (0) vs TCWHX (100000). TCWHX annual gain was more profitable for investors over the last year : 5.06 vs. FSNOX (4.39). TCWHX return over 5 years is better than : 12.89 vs. FSNOX (7.12).
| FSNOX | TCWHX | FSNOX / TCWHX | |
| Total Expense Ratio | 0.49 | 0.48 | 102% |
| Annual Report Gross Expense Ratio | 0.49 | 0.62 | 79% |
| Fund Existence | 8 years | 10 years | - |
| Gain YTD | 3.442 | 3.830 | 90% |
| Front Load | N/A | N/A | - |
| Min. Initial Investment | 0 | 100000 | - |
| Min. Initial Investment IRA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Net Assets | 12.6B | 2.1B | 599% |
| Annual Yield % from dividends | 2.59 | 3.41 | 76% |
| Returns for 1 year | 4.39 | 5.06 | 87% |
| Returns for 3 years | 21.73 | 19.23 | 113% |
| Returns for 5 years | 7.12 | 12.89 | 55% |
| Returns for 10 years | N/A | N/A | - |
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
VS
Interact to see
Advertisement
Advertisement