EMOT vs. FDL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

EMOT (First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF) and FDL (First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - EMOT is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Economic Moat Index, while FDL is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EMOT returned 18.68% vs 22.39% for FDL. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMOT charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for FDL.

Performance

EMOT vs. FDL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF (EMOT) and First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund (FDL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMOT achieves a 9.61% return, which is significantly lower than FDL's 12.67% return.

EMOT

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 9.61%
• 6M: 8.78%
• 1Y: 18.68%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FDL

• 1D: 1.20%
• 1M: -2.75%
• YTD: 12.67%
• 6M: 13.02%
• 1Y: 22.39%
• 3Y*: 19.10%
• 5Y*: 13.08%
• 10Y*: 11.12%

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

EMOT vs. FDL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMOT First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF	9.61%	14.17%	5.53%
FDL First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund	12.67%	14.79%	9.88%

Correlation

The correlation between EMOT and FDL is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.45

The correlation between EMOT and FDL shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (1 year) to 0.45 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EMOT vs. FDL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMOT	FDL
Technology	41.6%	1.4%
Consumer Cyclical	18.0%	4.7%
Consumer Defensive	15.9%	14.4%
Healthcare	9.4%	17.6%
Financial Services	5.1%	15.2%
Communication Services	3.9%	10.6%
Industrials	3.6%	3.9%
Energy	2.4%	25.7%
Basic Materials	-	0.3%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	6.5%

Return for Risk

EMOT vs. FDL — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMOT

EMOT Risk / Return Rank: 46
EMOT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
EMOT Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
EMOT Omega Ratio Rank: 45
EMOT Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
EMOT Martin Ratio Rank: 49

FDL

FDL Risk / Return Rank: 69
FDL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
FDL Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
FDL Omega Ratio Rank: 57
FDL Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
FDL Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

EMOT vs. FDL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF (EMOT) and First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund (FDL). 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.

	EMOT	FDL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	1.95	-0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.28	2.96	-0.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.34	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.04	5.26	-3.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.00	12.40	-4.39

EMOT vs. FDL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMOT Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is comparable to the FDL Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMOT and FDL, 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

EMOT vs. FDL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMOT drawdown since its inception was -16.41%, smaller than the maximum FDL drawdown of -65.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMOT and FDL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMOT	FDL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.41%	-65.93%	+49.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.19%	-4.27%	-4.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.24%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-16.46%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.40%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.28%	-3.09%	+0.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.06%	-9.64%	+7.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.34%	1.81%	+0.53%

Volatility

EMOT vs. FDL - Volatility Comparison

First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF (EMOT) has a higher volatility of 4.01% compared to First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund (FDL) at 3.72%. This indicates that EMOT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FDL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMOT	FDL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.01%	3.72%	+0.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.00%	8.09%	+0.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.73%	11.54%	+0.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.95%	14.31%	+0.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.95%	17.11%	-2.16%

EMOT vs. FDL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMOT has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FDL's 0.43% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMOT vs. FDL - Dividend Comparison

EMOT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.08%, less than FDL's 3.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMOT First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF	1.08%	0.84%	0.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FDL First Trust Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index Fund	3.70%	4.04%	4.96%	4.58%	3.58%	4.59%	4.48%	3.75%	3.97%	3.18%	2.93%	3.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMOT and FDL in my portfolio?

EMOT and FDL have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMOT or FDL?

EMOT has higher volatility (4.01%) compared to FDL (3.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMOT dropped -16.41% vs FDL's -65.93%.

Which ETF is better, EMOT or FDL?

On 1-year performance, FDL leads with 22.39% vs 18.68% for EMOT. On fees, FDL is cheaper at 0.43% per year. On volatility, FDL has been the lower-risk option at 3.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMOT or FDL?

Over the 1-year period, FDL has performed better with a 22.39% return vs 18.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMOT or FDL?

FDL is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for EMOT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMOT or FDL?

FDL has the higher dividend yield at 3.70%, compared with 1.08% for EMOT.

What is the main difference between EMOT and FDL?

EMOT is categorized as S&P 500, while FDL is Large Cap Value Equities. EMOT tracks S&P 500 Economic Moat Index, while FDL tracks Morningstar Dividend Leaders Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for EMOT and 0.43% for FDL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 1.60), 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.