ABEQ vs. FBCV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ABEQ (Absolute Select Value ETF) and FBCV (Fidelity Blue Chip Value ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ABEQ returned 7.06%/yr vs 8.64%/yr for FBCV. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ABEQ charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.57%/yr for FBCV.

Performance

ABEQ vs. FBCV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Absolute Select Value ETF (ABEQ) and Fidelity Blue Chip Value ETF (FBCV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ABEQ achieves a 3.44% return, which is significantly lower than FBCV's 9.91% return.

ABEQ

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: -0.34%
• YTD: 3.44%
• 6M: 3.43%
• 1Y: 8.87%
• 3Y*: 11.57%
• 5Y*: 7.06%
• 10Y*: —

FBCV

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 2.72%
• YTD: 9.91%
• 6M: 11.56%
• 1Y: 24.49%
• 3Y*: 14.94%
• 5Y*: 8.64%
• 10Y*: —

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

ABEQ vs. FBCV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
ABEQ Absolute Select Value ETF	3.44%	15.32%	12.68%	4.63%	-1.00%	12.49%	12.14%
FBCV Fidelity Blue Chip Value ETF	9.91%	16.36%	10.26%	5.45%	-2.26%	26.18%	16.98%

Correlation

The correlation between ABEQ and FBCV is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2020	0.81

The correlation between ABEQ and FBCV shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.81 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ABEQ vs. FBCV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ABEQ	FBCV
Financial Services	24.8%	21.6%
Basic Materials	17.0%	3.6%
Consumer Defensive	10.9%	9.8%
Energy	10.3%	10.0%
Industrials	8.3%	12.2%
Healthcare	7.2%	11.9%
Technology	4.4%	10.1%
Communication Services	3.0%	8.3%
Utilities	1.4%	2.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.3%
Real Estate	-	0.8%

Return for Risk

ABEQ vs. FBCV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ABEQ

ABEQ Risk / Return Rank: 25
ABEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
ABEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
ABEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 26
ABEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
ABEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 22

FBCV

FBCV Risk / Return Rank: 72
FBCV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
FBCV Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
FBCV Omega Ratio Rank: 70
FBCV Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
FBCV Martin Ratio Rank: 75

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ABEQ vs. FBCV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Absolute Select Value ETF (ABEQ) and Fidelity Blue Chip Value ETF (FBCV). 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.

	ABEQ	FBCV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.00	2.35	-1.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.46	3.46	-2.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.43	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.13	3.49	-2.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.78	14.27	-11.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ABEQ vs. FBCV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ABEQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.00, which is lower than the FBCV Sharpe Ratio of 2.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ABEQ and FBCV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ABEQ	FBCV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.00	2.35	-1.35
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.66	0.63	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.56	0.93	-0.37

Drawdowns

ABEQ vs. FBCV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ABEQ drawdown since its inception was -27.82%, which is greater than FBCV's maximum drawdown of -15.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ABEQ and FBCV.

Drawdown Indicators

	ABEQ	FBCV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.82%	-15.55%	-12.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.89%	-7.04%	-0.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.95%	-14.32%	+6.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.26%	-15.55%	-1.71%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.43%	-0.50%	-6.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.07%	-3.45%	-0.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.20%	1.72%	+1.48%

Volatility

ABEQ vs. FBCV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Absolute Select Value ETF (ABEQ) is 1.98%, while Fidelity Blue Chip Value ETF (FBCV) has a volatility of 2.18%. This indicates that ABEQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FBCV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ABEQ	FBCV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.98%	2.18%	-0.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.69%	7.66%	-0.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.91%	10.49%	-1.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.81%	13.81%	-3.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.84%	14.73%	-0.89%

ABEQ vs. FBCV - Expense Ratio Comparison

ABEQ has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than FBCV's 0.57% expense ratio.

Dividends

ABEQ vs. FBCV - Dividend Comparison

ABEQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.21%, less than FBCV's 2.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
ABEQ Absolute Select Value ETF	1.21%	1.25%	1.48%	2.60%	1.20%	0.60%	0.60%
FBCV Fidelity Blue Chip Value ETF	2.69%	2.95%	1.75%	1.68%	2.01%	3.13%	0.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ABEQ and FBCV in my portfolio?

ABEQ and FBCV have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ABEQ or FBCV?

FBCV has higher volatility (2.18%) compared to ABEQ (1.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ABEQ dropped -27.82% vs FBCV's -15.55%.

Which ETF is better, ABEQ or FBCV?

On 5-year performance, FBCV leads with 8.64% vs 7.06% for ABEQ. On fees, FBCV is cheaper at 0.57% per year. On volatility, ABEQ has been the lower-risk option at 1.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ABEQ or FBCV?

Over the 5-year period, FBCV has performed better with a 8.64% return vs 7.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ABEQ or FBCV?

FBCV is cheaper with a 0.57% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for ABEQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ABEQ or FBCV?

FBCV has the higher dividend yield at 2.69%, compared with 1.21% for ABEQ.

What is the main difference between ABEQ and FBCV?

They also come from different issuers: Absolute Investment Advisers LLC and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for ABEQ and 0.57% for FBCV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.35 vs 1.00), 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.