PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
AUSF vs. FSMD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

AUSF vs. FSMD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF (AUSF) and Fidelity Small-Mid Multifactor ETF (FSMD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AUSF achieves a 9.27% return, which is significantly lower than FSMD's 17.58% return.


AUSF

1D
0.70%
1M
2.94%
YTD
9.27%
6M
8.68%
1Y
17.75%
3Y*
19.94%
5Y*
13.35%
10Y*

FSMD

1D
1.00%
1M
4.34%
YTD
17.58%
6M
15.58%
1Y
29.65%
3Y*
17.46%
5Y*
10.00%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AUSF vs. FSMD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
AUSF
Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF
9.27%13.69%16.05%22.26%-0.18%27.48%1.27%12.21%
FSMD
Fidelity Small-Mid Multifactor ETF
17.58%8.70%15.18%17.37%-11.15%26.40%8.94%8.81%

Correlation

The correlation between AUSF and FSMD is 0.72, 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

0.72

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.81

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2019

0.84

The correlation between AUSF and FSMD shifts across timeframes, from 0.72 (1 year) to 0.84 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

AUSF vs. FSMD - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
AUSF
FSMD

Financial Services

18.4%
14.8%

Technology

15.3%
20.5%

Industrials

14.4%
20.1%

Healthcare

11.4%
11.7%

Consumer Cyclical

9.3%
10.6%

Communication Services

8.6%
2.9%

Consumer Defensive

7.8%
3.1%

Real Estate

4.6%
6.2%

Utilities

4.4%
2.1%

Energy

3.2%
4.1%

Basic Materials

2.6%
4.0%

Financial Services

AUSF
18.4%
FSMD
14.8%

Technology

AUSF
15.3%
FSMD
20.5%

Industrials

AUSF
14.4%
FSMD
20.1%

Healthcare

AUSF
11.4%
FSMD
11.7%

Consumer Cyclical

AUSF
9.3%
FSMD
10.6%

Communication Services

AUSF
8.6%
FSMD
2.9%

Consumer Defensive

AUSF
7.8%
FSMD
3.1%

Real Estate

AUSF
4.6%
FSMD
6.2%

Utilities

AUSF
4.4%
FSMD
2.1%

Energy

AUSF
3.2%
FSMD
4.1%

Basic Materials

AUSF
2.6%
FSMD
4.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

AUSF vs. FSMD — Risk / Return Rank

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

AUSF
AUSF Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
AUSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AUSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
AUSF Omega Ratio Rank: 5252
Omega Ratio Rank
AUSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
AUSF Martin Ratio Rank: 5454
Martin Ratio Rank

FSMD
FSMD Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
FSMD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FSMD Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
FSMD Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
FSMD Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
FSMD Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

AUSF vs. FSMD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF (AUSF) and Fidelity Small-Mid Multifactor ETF (FSMD). 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.


AUSFFSMDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.13

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.20

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.31

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.86

3.30

-0.44

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.29

11.89

-3.60

AUSF vs. FSMD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AUSF Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is comparable to the FSMD Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUSF and FSMD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

AUSF vs. FSMD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AUSF drawdown since its inception was -44.25%, which is greater than FSMD's maximum drawdown of -40.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUSF and FSMD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AUSFFSMDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.25%

-40.67%

-3.58%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.84%

-8.44%

+2.60%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.29%

-22.16%

+9.87%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-14.23%

-22.16%

+7.93%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.21%

-5.98%

+1.77%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.02%

2.34%

-0.32%

Volatility

AUSF vs. FSMD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF (AUSF) is 2.70%, while Fidelity Small-Mid Multifactor ETF (FSMD) has a volatility of 5.14%. This indicates that AUSF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FSMD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AUSFFSMDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.70%

5.14%

-2.44%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.72%

11.85%

-5.13%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.14%

15.69%

-5.55%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.66%

18.55%

-4.89%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.04%

21.43%

-2.39%

AUSF vs. FSMD - Expense Ratio Comparison

AUSF has a 0.27% expense ratio, which is lower than FSMD's 0.29% expense ratio.


Dividends

AUSF vs. FSMD - Dividend Comparison

AUSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.69%, more than FSMD's 1.18% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
AUSF
Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF
2.69%2.78%2.63%1.83%2.51%2.22%2.95%4.02%1.46%
FSMD
Fidelity Small-Mid Multifactor ETF
1.18%1.33%1.29%1.37%1.54%1.18%1.32%1.37%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


AUSF and FSMD have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FSMD has higher volatility (5.14%) compared to AUSF (2.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AUSF dropped -44.25% vs FSMD's -40.67%.

On 5-year performance, AUSF leads with 13.35% vs 10.00% for FSMD. On fees, AUSF is cheaper at 0.27% per year. On volatility, AUSF has been the lower-risk option at 2.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, AUSF has performed better with a 13.35% return vs 10.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

AUSF is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for FSMD.

AUSF has the higher dividend yield at 2.69%, compared with 1.18% for FSMD.

AUSF is categorized as Mid Cap Value Equities, while FSMD is Small Cap Growth Equities. AUSF tracks Adaptive Wealth Strategies U.S. Factor Index, while FSMD tracks Fidelity Small-Mid Multifactor Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.27% for AUSF and 0.29% for FSMD.

FSMD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs 1.65), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AUSF and FSMD

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer