CZA vs. FFSM

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) and FFSM (Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. CZA is passively managed, while FFSM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CZA returned 7.45%/yr vs 10.98%/yr for FFSM. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CZA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for FFSM.

Performance

CZA vs. FFSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) 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, CZA achieves a 9.13% return, which is significantly lower than FFSM's 22.47% return.

CZA

• 1D: 0.70%
• 1M: 3.51%
• YTD: 9.13%
• 6M: 7.73%
• 1Y: 15.79%
• 3Y*: 13.41%
• 5Y*: 7.45%
• 10Y*: 10.77%

FFSM

• 1D: 0.64%
• 1M: 5.51%
• YTD: 22.47%
• 6M: 19.44%
• 1Y: 39.96%
• 3Y*: 22.39%
• 5Y*: 10.98%
• 10Y*: —

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

CZA vs. FFSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	9.13%	8.31%	12.14%	7.00%	-5.91%	25.95%
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	22.47%	14.89%	14.38%	17.30%	-16.35%	20.44%

Correlation

The correlation between CZA and FFSM is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2021	0.87

The correlation between CZA and FFSM shifts across timeframes, from 0.77 (1 year) to 0.88 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CZA vs. FFSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CZA	FFSM
Financial Services	24.0%	22.7%
Industrials	16.3%	29.5%
Healthcare	13.1%	9.1%
Utilities	10.4%	1.8%
Technology	10.1%	14.0%
Real Estate	10.1%	0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	12.2%
Basic Materials	4.3%	6.2%
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	2.3%
Energy	0.7%	2.2%
Communication Services	-	-

Return for Risk

CZA vs. FFSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CZA

CZA Risk / Return Rank: 39
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 36
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 45

FFSM

FFSM Risk / Return Rank: 78
FFSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
FFSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
FFSM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
FFSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
FFSM Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

CZA vs. FFSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) 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.

	CZA	FFSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.24	2.16	-0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.88	3.01	-1.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.37	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.72	3.87	-2.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.60	15.58	-8.98

CZA vs. FFSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZA Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is lower than the FFSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZA 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

CZA vs. FFSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, which is greater than FFSM's maximum drawdown of -26.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and FFSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZA	FFSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.20%	-26.65%	-26.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.21%	-10.37%	+1.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	-24.78%	+5.86%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.92%	-26.65%	+7.73%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.87%	+0.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.86%	-7.78%	+0.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.40%	2.57%	-0.17%

Volatility

CZA vs. FFSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) is 2.95%, while Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) has a volatility of 6.37%. This indicates that CZA 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

	CZA	FFSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.95%	6.37%	-3.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.45%	14.65%	-5.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.78%	18.63%	-5.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	20.76%	-4.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.25%	20.61%	-1.36%

CZA vs. FFSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than FFSM's 0.43% expense ratio.

Dividends

CZA vs. FFSM - Dividend Comparison

CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.43%, more than FFSM's 0.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	1.43%	1.56%	1.27%	1.36%	1.71%	0.89%	1.42%	1.40%	1.27%	1.10%	1.87%	1.37%
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 CZA and FFSM in my portfolio?

CZA and FFSM have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CZA or FFSM?

FFSM has higher volatility (6.37%) compared to CZA (2.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZA dropped -53.20% vs FFSM's -26.65%.

Which ETF is better, CZA or FFSM?

On 5-year performance, FFSM leads with 10.98% vs 7.45% for CZA. On fees, FFSM is cheaper at 0.43% per year. On volatility, CZA has been the lower-risk option at 2.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CZA or FFSM?

Over the 5-year period, FFSM has performed better with a 10.98% return vs 7.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CZA or FFSM?

FFSM is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CZA.

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

CZA has the higher dividend yield at 1.43%, compared with 0.43% for FFSM.

What is the main difference between CZA and FFSM?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CZA and 0.43% for FFSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 vs 1.24), 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.