BND vs. FMAT
BND (Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF) and FMAT (Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BND is a Total Bond Market fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Float Adjusted Index, while FMAT is a Materials fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, BND returned 1.58%/yr vs 10.55%/yr for FMAT. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. BND charges 0.03%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FMAT.
Performance
BND vs. FMAT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BND achieves a 0.52% return, which is significantly lower than FMAT's 13.63% return. Over the past 10 years, BND has underperformed FMAT with an annualized return of 1.58%, while FMAT has yielded a comparatively higher 10.55% annualized return.
BND
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- 0.45%
- YTD
- 0.52%
- 6M
- 0.91%
- 1Y
- 4.77%
- 3Y*
- 4.17%
- 5Y*
- 0.03%
- 10Y*
- 1.58%
FMAT
- 1D
- 1.73%
- 1M
- 0.43%
- YTD
- 13.63%
- 6M
- 14.23%
- 1Y
- 23.84%
- 3Y*
- 11.38%
- 5Y*
- 6.23%
- 10Y*
- 10.55%
BND vs. FMAT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BND Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF | 0.52% | 7.08% | 1.38% | 5.65% | -13.11% | -1.86% | 7.71% | 8.84% | -0.12% | 3.57% |
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF | 13.63% | 12.11% | 0.47% | 13.71% | -11.54% | 27.45% | 19.57% | 23.35% | -17.40% | 23.51% |
Correlation
The correlation between BND and FMAT is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.03 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2013 | -0.02 |
The correlation between BND and FMAT shifts across timeframes, from -0.02 (all time) to 0.38 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
BND vs. FMAT — Risk / Return Rank
BND
FMAT
BND vs. FMAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) and Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT). 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.
| BND | FMAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.01 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.21 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.65 | 1.65 | 0.00 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.81 | 5.27 | -0.47 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BND vs. FMAT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BND drawdown since its inception was -18.58%, smaller than the maximum FMAT drawdown of -41.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BND and FMAT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BND | FMAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.58% | -41.11% | +22.53% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.68% | -13.48% | +10.80% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.92% | -23.17% | +17.25% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.91% | -25.40% | +7.49% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -18.58% | -41.11% | +22.53% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.12% | -3.48% | +1.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.06% | -6.87% | +3.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.92% | 4.21% | -3.29% |
Volatility
BND vs. FMAT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) is 1.28%, while Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) has a volatility of 7.54%. This indicates that BND experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FMAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BND | FMAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.28% | 7.54% | -6.26% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.74% | 14.80% | -12.06% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.75% | 18.44% | -14.69% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.03% | 19.74% | -13.71% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.53% | 21.25% | -15.72% |
BND vs. FMAT - Expense Ratio Comparison
BND has a 0.03% expense ratio, which is lower than FMAT's 0.08% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
BND vs. FMAT - Dividend Comparison
BND's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.96%, more than FMAT's 1.41% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BND Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF | 3.96% | 3.86% | 3.67% | 3.09% | 2.60% | 2.12% | 2.38% | 2.72% | 2.81% | 2.54% | 2.51% | 2.57% |
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF | 1.41% | 1.64% | 1.68% | 1.71% | 2.00% | 1.44% | 1.73% | 1.89% | 2.18% | 1.53% | 1.78% | 2.16% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BND and FMAT have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FMAT has higher volatility (7.54%) compared to BND (1.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BND dropped -18.58% vs FMAT's -41.11%.
On 10-year performance, FMAT leads with 10.55% vs 1.58% for BND. On fees, BND is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, BND has been the lower-risk option at 1.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, FMAT has performed better with a 10.55% return vs 1.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BND is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.08% for FMAT.
BND has the higher dividend yield at 3.96%, compared with 1.41% for FMAT.
BND is categorized as Total Bond Market, while FMAT is Materials. BND tracks Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Float Adjusted Index, while FMAT tracks MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.03% for BND and 0.08% for FMAT.
FMAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.20 vs 1.18), 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.
Find the right allocation for BND and FMAT
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