AAAU vs. FNCMX

Last updated Jul 31, 2026

AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) and FNCMX (Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund) are both funds - AAAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price, while FNCMX is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AAAU returned 17.54%/yr vs 11.67%/yr for FNCMX. Their 0.09 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. AAAU charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for FNCMX.

Performance

AAAU vs. FNCMX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) and Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund (FNCMX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AAAU achieves a -4.77% return, which is significantly lower than FNCMX's 5.49% return.

AAAU

• 1D: 1.66%
• 1M: 2.40%
• 6M: -23.85%
• YTD: -4.77%
• 1Y: 25.49%
• 3Y*: 27.68%
• 5Y*: 17.54%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.72%

FNCMX

• 1D: -1.75%
• 1M: -6.77%
• 6M: 3.51%
• YTD: 5.49%
• 1Y: 16.35%
• 3Y*: 20.43%
• 5Y*: 11.67%
• 10Y*: 17.71%
• ALL TIME*: 11.80%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	$44.00M	$44.27M	$64.81M
FNCMX Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

AAAU vs. FNCMX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	-4.77%	64.06%	26.91%	12.96%	-0.50%	-4.01%	25.02%	18.17%	8.28%
FNCMX Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund	5.49%	21.11%	29.48%	45.13%	-32.40%	22.21%	44.57%	36.63%	-15.35%

Correlation

The correlation between AAAU and FNCMX is 0.29, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.29
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.14
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 15, 2018	0.09

Over the past year, AAAU and FNCMX have become more correlated (0.29) than their long-term average of 0.09, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

AAAU vs. FNCMX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

AAAU

AAAU Risk / Return Rank: 35
AAAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
AAAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
AAAU Omega Ratio Rank: 42
AAAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
AAAU Martin Ratio Rank: 26

FNCMX

FNCMX Risk / Return Rank: 25
FNCMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
FNCMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
FNCMX Omega Ratio Rank: 23
FNCMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
FNCMX Martin Ratio Rank: 28

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

AAAU vs. FNCMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) and Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund (FNCMX). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AAAU	FNCMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.92	0.91	+0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.29	1.33	-0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.16	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.97	1.28	-0.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.13	4.31	-2.18

AAAU vs. FNCMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AAAU Sharpe Ratio is 0.92, which is comparable to the FNCMX Sharpe Ratio of 0.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AAAU and FNCMX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

AAAU vs. FNCMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AAAU drawdown since its inception was -26.29%, smaller than the maximum FNCMX drawdown of -55.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AAAU and FNCMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	AAAU	FNCMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.29%	-55.08%	+28.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.29%	-13.01%	-13.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.29%	-24.20%	-2.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.29%	-35.64%	+9.35%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.85%	-9.70%	-14.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.52%	-7.84%	+1.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.02%	3.85%	+8.17%

Volatility

AAAU vs. FNCMX - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) has a higher volatility of 6.13% compared to Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund (FNCMX) at 5.07%. This indicates that AAAU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNCMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AAAU	FNCMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.13%	5.07%	+1.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.25%	14.45%	+8.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.86%	18.23%	+9.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.31%	22.76%	-4.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.23%	22.14%	-4.91%

AAAU vs. FNCMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

AAAU has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than FNCMX's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

AAAU vs. FNCMX - Dividend Comparison

AAAU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FNCMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.49%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FNCMX Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund	0.49%	0.51%	0.61%	0.67%	0.88%	0.47%	0.67%	4.41%	1.93%	0.03%	1.01%	1.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AAAU and FNCMX in my portfolio?

AAAU and FNCMX have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AAAU or FNCMX?

AAAU has higher volatility (6.13%) compared to FNCMX (5.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AAAU dropped -26.29% vs FNCMX's -55.08%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AAAU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.92 vs 0.91), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.