# IBKR(VT) vs Neon(FWRA) **URL:** \ **Category:** Investing / Brokers\ **Created:** [May 24, 2024, 2:54pm UTC](https://forum.mustachianpost.com/t/ibkr-vt-vs-neon-fwra/12837 "2024-05-24T14:54:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 8
**Author:** ![Dr.PI](https://forum.mustachianpost.com/user_avatar/forum.mustachianpost.com/dr.pi/32/5299_2.png) [@Dr.PI](https://forum.mustachianpost.com/u/Dr.PI)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 3:23pm UTC](https://forum.mustachianpost.com/t/ibkr-vt-vs-neon-fwra/12837/8 "2024-05-24T15:23:25Z")
There are could be other reasons why US WHT is not reimbursed, in particular if your tax rate is too low. In this case, FWRA will be probably better than VT. Try with your numbers: > [@Splitting the world: creating tax-advantaged global stocks portfolio using funds in 3a account](https://forum.mustachianpost.com/t/splitting-the-world-creating-tax-advantaged-global-stocks-portfolio-using-funds-in-3a-account/7001/16): > > I was thinking about updating this post, but decided not to. Too many variables that affect total investment costs. Instead I decided to outline what I think is a right way to calculate the total investment costs for an ETF. As a Swiss investor, one is only taxed on dividends, and namely up to 3 times. Let’s consider the whole process. All companies included in a fund are paying out dividends, which all together make gross dividend yield (in %) D\_G. The gross dividend yield of various baskets … In any case, if you are OK with Interactive Brokers, go for it. You can buy both ETFs there. And I would still recommend VT for one fund portfolio if your concern is fees, not US domicile. The difference between two funds should be small to matter. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.mustachianpost.com/t/ibkr-vt-vs-neon-fwra/12837)._