VT
Vanguard Total World Stock ETF
stock NYSE ETF

I can't speak on VFIAX since I don't know much besides it looking like a sp500 fund, but in terms of risk from lowest to highest: FFIX < VT < VOO with VOO having the highest risk. Though with you being 26 it's fine. You can think of VOO as a smaller and riskier VTI.

>a terrible high fee US active fund will have almost certainly beaten VT handily over the life of the fund

I haven't seen evidence that this is the case but my intuition tells me it's not true for the vast, vast majority of US active funds. I'm open to accepting evidence to the contrary.

Regardless, the goal of my comment was not to get into a pedantic argument about the similarity (or dissimilarity) in compositions of the infinite possible portfolios containing low-expense, highly-diversified index funds, or about how their performance compares to active funds.
I get that it's in vogue right now to talk about how the US can't possibly continue to outperform international at the rate it has - but I've also been investing long enough to know that fears of one sort or another arise every time the market reaches new highs.
Sometimes fearmongerers are right, sometimes they're wrong. Usually us average folks can't guess correctly which because we live in an increasingly global, complex, and unpredictable world. So if we're working with long investment horizons we should just cover our eyes.

My main point was that there is no single "correct" Boglehead portfolio - rather there are an infinite number of portfolios that may be more consistent or less consistent with the philosophy that Bogleheads espouse. Some folks (myself included) find the international exposure through the 50%+ of international revenue VTI companies earn each year is diversification enough. After all, if there were some lucrative, scalable business opportunity to be had overseas surely a VTI company would seek to capture it.

Now for me being 26, is FFIJX the lowest risk out of them? If VOO or VT or VFIAX performs better I think I would choose those?

VT, there's no guarantee the US will perform as well for the next 20 years. It lifts the 'worst case scenario' base

They’re basically the same thing. VOO is the ETF version and VFIAX is the mutual fund version. I don’t think you can buy VFIAX at Fidelity, though (or at least without a fee).
I would probably pick VT instead of VOO because of the international exposure.

The problem with overlap is that kt makes it harder to tell what you own. VT is already like 50% S&P500. Why own those companies twice?
[New to /r/Bogleheads? Read this first!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/1l6j6tj/new_to_rbogleheads_read_this_first/)
You don't need any concentration in "the 100 largest (non-financial) companies that happen to trade on the nasdaq exchange". It's a nonsense index. There's no fundamental reason for that selection criteria to outperform in the future, it only looks attractive because of the last decade of performance.
No need to tilt towards tech, or [any sector](https://novelinvestor.com/sector-performance/), because sectors outperform in unpredictable ways and the market already has priced in all the available information about future expected performance. Tilting in that way tends to just introduce [uncompensated risk](https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/uncompensated-risk/), which means that you're taking on more risk than investing in a total market index fund, but you can't expect to receive better returns than the market average.
International and US have [cycles of outperformance](https://www.mymoneyblog.com/us-vs-international-stocks-cycles-outperformance.html) compared to each other. Betting on the largest cap US companies doesn't give you any promise of outperformance.

There's nothing making it impossible - you can buy and hold those funds just fine. If you make a plan (say 1/3 each) and stick to it, your return over long term probably will be similar to just going with VT.
In practice though, it's more likely that you'll end up underperforming by changing your plan based on whatever is performing well recently.

VT. I (like you) am investing long term, and I don’t know if the US will still be the n1 economical leader. (Yep, it’s not « too big to fail ». The US is big, but what will happen in 20-30years ? I prefer to stay diversified and sleep well ahha

If you just want ONE ETF and growth, you wouldn’t go wrong with VT. It is a safe bet. If VT stop growing, you know the whole world is in trouble.

ARKK? lol what?. More like 80% VT and 20% QQQ and chill.

I’d go 50-50 VT & VTI

Agreed. VT is fine but I prefer VTI + VXUS for the flexibility. In the long term he’ll be managing a portfolio across multiple accounts and he can’t really predict what will be optimal decades from now. I’m not aware of any actual advantages to VT, beyond the simplicity, but 2 funds is not exactly mindbogglingly complicated.

With a long time frame, I would choose an sp500 fund such as IVV, VOO or FXAIX over VT. VT may perform better some years but not most years so you'll end up underperforming the sp500 long term.

VT is the safer bet looking at very long time horizons.
Dollar milkshake theory would suggest VTI would be better, but hard to say.

I have been and still am VT and chilling.

If that’s too hard to keep up with, why have “ETF Investor” in your profile? 😂😂 There’s nothing wrong with VT and chill, I was just trying to clarify your initial statement for OP.

VT is the only sensible answer

SP500. You are buying a lot of trash with VT.

No and that is why many choose VT to have both domestic and interventional and let it auto rebalance as needed. They know sometimes it will capture downside but it also won’t miss upside. S&P specifically relies on large cap US to do well or it will suffer. But if large cap US does well like it has for decades now it will dominate. Go full S&P if you believe in large cap US long term dominance. Go VT for better risk management

If your sole purpose is diversification and simplicity, VT is probably the best. But, you can always just do VOO and add VXUS or VTI and VXUS.