FCOM vs. QQQI

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

FCOM (Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF) and QQQI (NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FCOM is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Telecommunication Services 25/50 Index, while QQQI is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Neos. FCOM is passively managed, while QQQI is actively managed. Over the past year, FCOM returned 16.02% vs 27.00% for QQQI. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FCOM charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for QQQI.

Performance

FCOM vs. QQQI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) and NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCOM achieves a -3.17% return, which is significantly lower than QQQI's 10.58% return.

FCOM

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: -5.25%
• YTD: -3.17%
• 6M: -1.90%
• 1Y: 16.02%
• 3Y*: 22.19%
• 5Y*: 6.79%
• 10Y*: 11.60%

QQQI

• 1D: 0.70%
• 1M: -0.22%
• YTD: 10.58%
• 6M: 11.20%
• 1Y: 27.00%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FCOM vs. QQQI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FCOM Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF	-3.17%	26.06%	23.80%
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	10.58%	18.62%	19.44%

Correlation

The correlation between FCOM and QQQI is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 30, 2024	0.72

The correlation between FCOM and QQQI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

FCOM vs. QQQI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCOM	QQQI
Communication Services	98.0%	14.2%
Technology	1.7%	58.1%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	11.3%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.5%
Energy	-	0.5%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Healthcare	-	3.9%
Industrials	-	3.0%
Utilities	-	1.3%

Return for Risk

FCOM vs. QQQI — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCOM

FCOM Risk / Return Rank: 30
FCOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
FCOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
FCOM Omega Ratio Rank: 29
FCOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
FCOM Martin Ratio Rank: 31

QQQI

QQQI Risk / Return Rank: 65
QQQI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
QQQI Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
QQQI Omega Ratio Rank: 67
QQQI Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
QQQI Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

FCOM vs. QQQI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) and NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI). 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.

	FCOM	QQQI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.97	1.84	-0.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.49	2.43	-0.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.34	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.11	2.70	-1.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.05	11.63	-7.58

FCOM vs. QQQI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCOM Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is lower than the QQQI Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCOM and QQQI, 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

FCOM vs. QQQI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCOM drawdown since its inception was -46.76%, which is greater than QQQI's maximum drawdown of -20.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCOM and QQQI.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCOM	QQQI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.76%	-20.00%	-26.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.48%	-9.61%	-3.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.16%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-46.76%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.76%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.40%	-2.69%	-3.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.66%	-2.21%	-6.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.68%	2.23%	+1.45%

Volatility

FCOM vs. QQQI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) is 4.08%, while NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF (QQQI) has a volatility of 6.10%. This indicates that FCOM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCOM	QQQI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.08%	6.10%	-2.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.19%	11.35%	-0.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.43%	14.10%	+1.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.19%	17.34%	+3.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.96%	17.34%	+3.62%

FCOM vs. QQQI - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCOM has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than QQQI's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCOM vs. QQQI - Dividend Comparison

FCOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.96%, less than QQQI's 13.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCOM Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF	0.96%	0.88%	0.87%	0.77%	1.04%	0.90%	0.68%	0.86%	2.78%	11.70%	2.27%	2.92%
QQQI NEOS Nasdaq-100 High Income ETF	13.53%	13.82%	12.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCOM and QQQI in my portfolio?

FCOM and QQQI have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FCOM or QQQI?

QQQI has higher volatility (6.10%) compared to FCOM (4.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCOM dropped -46.76% vs QQQI's -20.00%.

Which ETF is better, FCOM or QQQI?

On 1-year performance, QQQI leads with 27.00% vs 16.02% for FCOM. On fees, FCOM is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FCOM has been the lower-risk option at 4.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FCOM or QQQI?

Over the 1-year period, QQQI has performed better with a 27.00% return vs 16.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCOM or QQQI?

FCOM is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for QQQI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FCOM or QQQI?

QQQI has the higher dividend yield at 13.53%, compared with 0.96% for FCOM.

What is the main difference between FCOM and QQQI?

FCOM is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while QQQI is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FCOM and 0.68% for QQQI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QQQI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 0.97), 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.