BMVP vs. FFSM

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

BMVP (Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF) and FFSM (Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. BMVP is passively managed, while FFSM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, BMVP returned 6.39%/yr vs 11.30%/yr for FFSM. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BMVP charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for FFSM.

Performance

BMVP vs. FFSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP) and Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BMVP achieves a 5.43% return, which is significantly lower than FFSM's 24.27% return.

BMVP

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: -1.31%
• YTD: 5.43%
• 6M: 4.09%
• 1Y: 9.58%
• 3Y*: 13.23%
• 5Y*: 6.39%
• 10Y*: 10.04%

FFSM

• 1D: 1.47%
• 1M: 5.22%
• YTD: 24.27%
• 6M: 21.19%
• 1Y: 43.07%
• 3Y*: 22.71%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

BMVP vs. FFSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BMVP Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF	5.43%	6.15%	17.46%	19.03%	-16.01%	10.23%
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	24.27%	14.89%	14.38%	17.30%	-16.35%	20.44%

Correlation

The correlation between BMVP and FFSM is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2021	0.84

Over the past year, the correlation between BMVP and FFSM has dropped to 0.60 - well below their long-term average of 0.84, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

BMVP vs. FFSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BMVP	FFSM
Technology	17.2%	14.0%
Industrials	16.6%	29.5%
Financial Services	16.3%	22.7%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	12.2%
Healthcare	9.7%	9.1%
Communication Services	7.5%	-
Real Estate	5.4%	0.0%
Energy	5.1%	2.2%
Utilities	5.1%	1.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	2.3%
Basic Materials	1.5%	6.2%

Return for Risk

BMVP vs. FFSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

BMVP

BMVP Risk / Return Rank: 30
BMVP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
BMVP Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
BMVP Omega Ratio Rank: 26
BMVP Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
BMVP Martin Ratio Rank: 33

FFSM

FFSM Risk / Return Rank: 84
FFSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FFSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FFSM Omega Ratio Rank: 78
FFSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FFSM Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

BMVP vs. FFSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP) and Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM). 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.

	BMVP	FFSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.99	2.32	-1.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.48	3.21	-1.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.40	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.49	4.17	-2.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.44	16.79	-12.35

BMVP vs. FFSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BMVP Sharpe Ratio is 0.99, which is lower than the FFSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BMVP and FFSM, 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

BMVP vs. FFSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BMVP drawdown since its inception was -78.13%, which is greater than FFSM's maximum drawdown of -26.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BMVP and FFSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BMVP	FFSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.13%	-26.65%	-51.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.45%	-10.37%	+3.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.12%	-24.78%	+9.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.58%	-26.65%	+0.07%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.45%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.75%	0.00%	-2.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-36.11%	-7.78%	-28.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.16%	2.57%	-0.41%

Volatility

BMVP vs. FFSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP) is 2.52%, while Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) has a volatility of 6.31%. This indicates that BMVP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BMVP	FFSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.52%	6.31%	-3.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.26%	14.69%	-7.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.81%	18.64%	-8.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.02%	20.77%	-4.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.78%	20.61%	-1.83%

BMVP vs. FFSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BMVP has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than FFSM's 0.43% expense ratio.

Dividends

BMVP vs. FFSM - Dividend Comparison

BMVP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.80%, more than FFSM's 0.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BMVP Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF	1.80%	1.77%	1.58%	1.67%	1.51%	0.56%	1.09%	0.95%	1.44%	1.75%	1.35%	1.02%
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.43%	0.56%	0.62%	0.56%	0.58%	0.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BMVP and FFSM in my portfolio?

BMVP and FFSM have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BMVP or FFSM?

FFSM has higher volatility (6.31%) compared to BMVP (2.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BMVP dropped -78.13% vs FFSM's -26.65%.

Which ETF is better, BMVP or FFSM?

On 5-year performance, FFSM leads with 11.30% vs 6.39% for BMVP. On fees, BMVP is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, BMVP has been the lower-risk option at 2.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BMVP or FFSM?

Over the 5-year period, FFSM has performed better with a 11.30% return vs 6.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BMVP or FFSM?

BMVP is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.43% for FFSM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BMVP or FFSM?

BMVP has the higher dividend yield at 1.80%, compared with 0.43% for FFSM.

What is the main difference between BMVP and FFSM?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for BMVP and 0.43% for FFSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 0.99), 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.