Live data
Compare
| Feature | Index Fund | Active Fund |
|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.03–0.10% | 0.50–1.50% |
| Turnover | Low (3–5% annually) | High (50–100%+) |
| Tax efficiency | High (few taxable events) | Low (frequent trading creates taxes) |
| Manager risk | None — follows the index | Star manager leaves, style drifts |
| 15-year odds of matching the index | Very high — tracks index by construction, net of a tiny expense ratio (0.03–0.10%) and minimal tracking error | ~10–15% (US large-cap, net of fees; source: SPIVA Scorecard 2008–2023 15-year window; lower for international equity and small-cap categories) |
Formula
Fee Cost = Portfolio × [(1+r−fee_low)ⁿ − (1+r−fee_high)ⁿ]
Key point
On a $100K portfolio over 30 years at 10% gross return, the difference between a 0.05% index fund and a 1.0% active fund is approximately $395,000 over 30 years. Fees compound against you just like returns compound for you.
Try it
Check-in
Key insight
Note
The ~85–90% underperformance figure cited in this module applies specifically to US large-cap active funds over 15-year windows (SPIVA US Scorecard, S&P Global, 2008–2023 data). Underperformance rates differ by category and period: international equity funds underperform at roughly 80–85%; small-cap and emerging-markets active funds show a wider range (60–90%) and can outperform over shorter windows. The index fund column of the table above shows 'very high odds of matching the index' — not 'guaranteed to beat active funds' — because 'matching the index by construction' and 'active funds underperforming' are two different propositions. Verify the most current SPIVA data at spglobal.com/spiva before citing any specific percentage.
Note
Where active has a credible edge: The indexing case is strongest in US large-cap equities — the most analyzed, most liquid, most efficiently priced market in the world. SPIVA data shows active underperformance is materially lower (i.e., active managers do relatively better) in less-efficient corners: international developed equity (~80-85% underperform over 15 years), small-cap US (~70%), and emerging markets (~60-90% depending on window). Credit markets (high-yield bonds, CLOs) also show more active-manager persistence than large-cap equity. The conclusion is not 'active never wins' — it is that the US large-cap index is where the case for passive is overwhelming, and where most retail money lives.
ESG screens: ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) funds apply non-financial filters to exclude or tilt away from companies that score poorly on environmental footprint, labor practices, or board quality. ESG funds are often index-like in structure but with the screened universe. Academic evidence on whether ESG screens improve or impair returns is mixed. Oxford Ledge neither recommends nor discourages ESG investing; it is a values-plus-return framework the learner should understand.
Factor tilts (a vocabulary entry): Academic research (Fama-French, Carhart) identifies four return factors that have historically produced excess returns over the broad market — though persistence is debated: (1) Size — small-cap stocks have historically outperformed large-cap over long horizons; (2) Value — stocks cheap relative to book value or earnings have historically outperformed growth stocks; (3) Profitability — more profitable firms outperform less profitable; (4) Momentum — stocks that have recently risen tend to continue rising over the next 3-12 months. Factor-tilt funds (sometimes called 'smart beta') attempt to systematically capture these premiums at index-fund cost levels. Whether the premiums persist after publication and widespread adoption is an open empirical question.
Sit with the ideas.
Buffett's $1M bet (2008-2017): a Vanguard S&P 500 index fund returned 125.8% while a portfolio of hedge funds returned 36%. What does this primarily demonstrate?