Hello,

Welcome to our flagship newsletter, MarketBeat Daily Ratings.

We'll deliver the latest "Buy" and "Sell" ratings from Wall Street's top-rated analysts directly to your inbox each morning.

But first, we need you to do two quick things:

1. Hit reply, and send a simple "Yes." Just one word. This tells Google (and other emails providers) that you actually want to get our newsletter.

2. After that, this link to confirm your subscription. That will tell us that you received our welcome email and that we should start sending your daily report. 

Confirm your subscription here.

After you have completed these two steps, we would like to gift you a free copy of one of our most popular investing reports: 7 Stocks to Buy and Hold Forever. You can download the report with this link.

Thank you again for subscribing. We look forward to being an important part of your investing journey

Matthew Paulson
Founder and CEO, MarketBeat.

P.S. If you didn’t intend to subscribe, no problem—you can unsubscribe with this link.

(ARReply-161)

3 Zero-Fee ETFs Worth More Than Their Cost

Submitted by Nathan Reiff. First Published: 9/18/2026.

The race to the bottom in the exchange-traded fund (ETF) price war has reached its presumed final destination, with a growing number of funds available to investors at no annual fee. These zero-fee funds and their ultra-low-fee competitors have the potential to improve long-term returns because they leave as much of the portfolio's return as possible with the investor. They make diversification especially easy and inexpensive, while still offering robust exposure to a variety of sectors and industries.

On the other hand, zero-fee funds are not necessarily completely cost-free. Investors may still have to pay brokerage expenses, transaction costs and other indirect charges. It's therefore critical that investors not assume that a zero-fee fund costs them nothing. These funds, like all others, still need to make the case that they are worth more than they cost. With broad portfolio access, a low-cost income strategy and some of the least expensive access to the S&P 500, the ETFs below may make a compelling case that they offer more value than their fees would suggest.

BKLC Provides Some of the Cheapest Exposure to U.S. Equities, But Beware of Liquidity

Tomorrow it's $29.97 (Ad)

Bill Poulos is giving away his Simple Options Trading For Beginners book through a temporary link. Once that link expires, it returns to its usual price of $29.97.

The content stays the same - plain-English lessons and a handful of proven techniques - only the price changes. Waiting means paying for something you could have gotten for free.

Download your free copy before the link expires today.

The BNY Mellon US Large Cap Core Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: BKLC) may appeal to investors seeking broad exposure to U.S. stocks. The fund attempted to make up for its relatively late entry into the U.S. equities space by undercutting its competitors' fees. Crucially, BKLC also includes real estate investment trusts (REITs) in its basket, a category that many other broad funds tend to avoid.

BKLC is not the most diversified fund available, but its more than 500 positions provide access to a wide swath of the U.S. market. It is unsurprisingly dominated by tech names like NVIDIA Corp. (NASDAQ: NVDA), with the tech sector receiving a 38% allocation overall. However, the fund also holds financial, communications, health care and other stocks.

As of mid-September, BKLC had very slightly outperformed the S&P 500, with a year-to-date (YTD) return of 11.7%. One potential trade-off investors should watch, however, is the fund's smaller asset base and lower trading volume compared with other broad U.S. ETFs. This can create a liquidity impact that may end up costing active investors more in trading fees.

An Actively Managed, Income-Generating Fund With No Fee ... For Now

With a net expense ratio of 0%, the Global X U.S. 500 Income Edge ETF (NYSEARCA: EDGX) is one of the newest entrants to the zero-fee fund space. This fund comes with a significant caveat: Its gross expense ratio is 0.50%, but the fund issuer has waived those expenses through at least the beginning of March 2027. For this reason, EDGX is not a truly cost-free ETF and may not appeal to buy-and-hold investors seeking the lowest-cost options.

However, the current waiver significantly enhances EDGX's appeal as an income-generating fund. It stands apart for its dynamic covered-call strategy, which allows it to sell call options on some of its holdings in an effort to generate a 9% annualized distribution rate.

EDGX takes a dramatically different approach from most other zero- and low-cost funds, and it's exceedingly rare to find an actively managed fund trading for an effective 0% annual fee. On the other hand, its strategy is largely unproven, as it has traded for only just over half a year. It also has a vanishingly small asset base and minimal trading volume. Investors may see the appeal of the fund now, but the calculation could change if and when the fee waiver expires.

SPYM Takes an Opposing Approach With Ultra-Cheap Access to the S&P 500

The field of S&P 500-focused funds is quite large, but the State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: SPYM) keeps things simple by offering direct exposure at a very low expense ratio of just 0.02% per year.

SPYM is one of the cheapest ways for investors to gain access to about 80% of the U.S. stock market. The fund holds just over 500 positions, in line with other S&P 500 funds, so its primary distinguishing factors are its assets under management and trading volume.

SPYM is robust in both categories, with about $170 billion in managed assets and a one-month average trading volume of more than 13 million shares. Investors will want to compare this fund with competitors offering a very similar proposition at a different price point. State Street's flagship SPDR S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY) has approximately $800 billion in assets and more than triple the average trading volume, but it also carries an annual fee of 0.09%. With performance that is essentially the same, the choice may come down to transaction costs versus annual fees.