EAPCX vs. FMAT
Compare and contrast key facts about Parametric Commodity Strategy Fund Class A (EAPCX) and Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT).
EAPCX is managed by Eaton Vance. It was launched on May 25, 2011. FMAT is a passively managed fund by Fidelity that tracks the performance of the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. It was launched on Oct 21, 2013.
Performance
EAPCX vs. FMAT - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
EAPCX vs. FMAT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EAPCX Parametric Commodity Strategy Fund Class A | 17.25% | 22.06% | 9.63% | -4.87% | 17.26% | 29.92% | 7.77% | 9.19% | -9.60% | 6.71% |
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF | 10.39% | 12.11% | 0.47% | 13.71% | -11.54% | 27.45% | 19.57% | 23.35% | -17.40% | 23.51% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EAPCX achieves a 17.25% return, which is significantly higher than FMAT's 10.39% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with EAPCX having a 11.17% annualized return and FMAT not far behind at 10.68%.
EAPCX
- 1D
- 0.79%
- 1M
- 5.49%
- YTD
- 17.25%
- 6M
- 25.77%
- 1Y
- 32.66%
- 3Y*
- 15.07%
- 5Y*
- 16.10%
- 10Y*
- 11.17%
FMAT
- 1D
- 1.35%
- 1M
- -6.01%
- YTD
- 10.39%
- 6M
- 13.11%
- 1Y
- 22.42%
- 3Y*
- 10.45%
- 5Y*
- 7.38%
- 10Y*
- 10.68%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
EAPCX vs. FMAT - Expense Ratio Comparison
EAPCX has a 0.91% expense ratio, which is higher than FMAT's 0.08% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
EAPCX vs. FMAT — Risk / Return Rank
EAPCX
FMAT
EAPCX vs. FMAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Parametric Commodity Strategy Fund Class A (EAPCX) 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.
| EAPCX | FMAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.25 | 1.05 | +1.20 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.83 | 1.59 | +1.25 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.41 | 1.20 | +0.20 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.70 | 1.61 | +2.09 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.97 | 5.50 | +7.47 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EAPCX | FMAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.25 | 1.05 | +1.20 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.11 | 0.38 | +0.73 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.84 | 0.51 | +0.34 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.29 | 0.44 | -0.15 |
Correlation
The correlation between EAPCX and FMAT is 0.36, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
EAPCX vs. FMAT - Dividend Comparison
EAPCX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.28%, more than FMAT's 1.45% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EAPCX Parametric Commodity Strategy Fund Class A | 11.28% | 13.23% | 5.46% | 3.43% | 14.80% | 13.74% | 3.01% | 1.11% | 0.41% | 4.98% | 6.49% | 0.00% |
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF | 1.45% | 1.64% | 1.68% | 1.71% | 2.00% | 1.44% | 1.73% | 1.89% | 2.18% | 1.53% | 1.78% | 2.16% |
Drawdowns
EAPCX vs. FMAT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EAPCX drawdown since its inception was -52.59%, which is greater than FMAT's maximum drawdown of -41.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EAPCX and FMAT.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| EAPCX | FMAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -52.59% | -41.11% | -11.48% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.09% | -14.21% | +5.12% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -18.05% | -25.40% | +7.35% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -28.81% | -41.11% | +12.30% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.39% | -6.22% | +5.83% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -23.03% | -6.90% | -16.13% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.60% | 4.16% | -1.56% |
Volatility
EAPCX vs. FMAT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Parametric Commodity Strategy Fund Class A (EAPCX) is 4.58%, while Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) has a volatility of 6.76%. This indicates that EAPCX 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 graphics...
Volatility by Period
| EAPCX | FMAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.58% | 6.76% | -2.18% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.78% | 13.38% | -1.60% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.85% | 21.40% | -6.55% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.64% | 19.54% | -4.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.29% | 21.14% | -7.85% |