DVXB vs. FMAT

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

DVXB (WEBs Materials XLB Defined Volatility ETF) and FMAT (Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF) are both Materials funds - DVXB tracks the Syntax Defined Volatility XLB Index while FMAT tracks the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, DVXB returned 20.35% vs 16.93% for FMAT. Their 0.98 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. DVXB charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FMAT.

Performance

DVXB vs. FMAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WEBs Materials XLB Defined Volatility ETF (DVXB) and Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DVXB achieves a 15.12% return, which is significantly higher than FMAT's 8.05% return.

DVXB

• 1D: -3.82%
• 1M: -4.08%
• 6M: -0.84%
• YTD: 15.12%
• 1Y: 20.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.74%

FMAT

• 1D: -2.33%
• 1M: -4.27%
• 6M: -0.47%
• YTD: 8.05%
• 1Y: 16.93%
• 3Y*: 7.48%
• 5Y*: 5.78%
• 10Y*: 9.55%
• ALL TIME*: 8.42%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
DVXB WEBs Materials XLB Defined Volatility ETF	$1.05K	$1.06K	$4.38K
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	$2.12M	$3.31M	$3.29M

DVXB vs. FMAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
DVXB WEBs Materials XLB Defined Volatility ETF	15.12%	-6.27%
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	8.05%	2.64%

Correlation

The correlation between DVXB and FMAT is 0.98 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2025	0.98

The correlation between DVXB and FMAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

DVXB vs. FMAT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

DVXB

DVXB Risk / Return Rank: 27
DVXB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
DVXB Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
DVXB Omega Ratio Rank: 26
DVXB Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
DVXB Martin Ratio Rank: 26

FMAT

FMAT Risk / Return Rank: 34
FMAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
FMAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
FMAT Omega Ratio Rank: 32
FMAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
FMAT Martin Ratio Rank: 35

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

DVXB vs. FMAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WEBs Materials XLB Defined Volatility ETF (DVXB) 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.

	DVXB	FMAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	0.86	-0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.02	1.30	-0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.15	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.91	1.19	-0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.08	3.41	-1.33

DVXB vs. FMAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DVXB Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is lower than the FMAT Sharpe Ratio of 0.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DVXB and FMAT, 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

DVXB vs. FMAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DVXB drawdown since its inception was -19.77%, smaller than the maximum FMAT drawdown of -41.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DVXB and FMAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	DVXB	FMAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.77%	-41.11%	+21.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.77%	-13.48%	-6.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.17%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.40%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.11%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.78%	-8.21%	-4.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.54%	-6.86%	-0.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.63%	4.69%	+3.94%

Volatility

DVXB vs. FMAT - Volatility Comparison

WEBs Materials XLB Defined Volatility ETF (DVXB) has a higher volatility of 8.95% compared to Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) at 5.53%. This indicates that DVXB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FMAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DVXB	FMAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.95%	5.53%	+3.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.87%	15.12%	+7.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.49%	18.65%	+11.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.60%	19.73%	+10.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.60%	21.21%	+9.39%

DVXB vs. FMAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

DVXB has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than FMAT's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

DVXB vs. FMAT - Dividend Comparison

DVXB has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DVXB WEBs Materials XLB Defined Volatility ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	1.47%	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

Can I hold both DVXB and FMAT in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, DVXB and FMAT move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, DVXB or FMAT?

DVXB has higher volatility (8.95%) compared to FMAT (5.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DVXB dropped -19.77% vs FMAT's -41.11%.

Which ETF is better, DVXB or FMAT?

On 1-year performance, DVXB leads with 20.35% vs 16.93% for FMAT. On fees, FMAT is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FMAT has been the lower-risk option at 5.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DVXB or FMAT?

Over the 1-year period, DVXB has performed better with a 20.35% return vs 16.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DVXB or FMAT?

FMAT is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for DVXB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DVXB or FMAT?

FMAT has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.00% for DVXB.

What is the main difference between DVXB and FMAT?

DVXB tracks Syntax Defined Volatility XLB Index, while FMAT tracks MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. They also come from different issuers: WEBs and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for DVXB and 0.08% for FMAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FMAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.86 vs 0.59), 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.