FCOM vs. RFDA

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FCOM (Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FCOM is passively managed, while RFDA is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, FCOM returned 11.07%/yr vs 13.34%/yr for RFDA. Their 0.70 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FCOM charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

FCOM vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCOM achieves a -2.54% return, which is significantly lower than RFDA's 15.03% return. Over the past 10 years, FCOM has underperformed RFDA with an annualized return of 11.07%, while RFDA has yielded a comparatively higher 13.34% annualized return.

FCOM

• 1D: 3.50%
• 1M: 0.35%
• 6M: -5.04%
• YTD: -2.54%
• 1Y: 10.42%
• 3Y*: 20.93%
• 5Y*: 6.41%
• 10Y*: 11.07%
• ALL TIME*: 10.88%

RFDA

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: 2.46%
• 6M: 12.74%
• YTD: 15.03%
• 1Y: 27.34%
• 3Y*: 19.02%
• 5Y*: 13.00%
• 10Y*: 13.34%
• ALL TIME*: 13.46%

*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)
FCOM Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF	$19.70M	$14.75M	$13.31M
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	$108.91K	$106.06K	$119.38K

FCOM vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FCOM Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF	-2.54%	26.06%	33.05%	44.65%	-38.97%	13.88%	28.33%	26.69%	-5.33%	8.20%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	15.03%	16.42%	20.12%	16.98%	-8.58%	25.94%	11.26%	27.15%	-9.27%	19.86%

Correlation

The correlation between FCOM and RFDA is 0.52, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.67
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.72
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 7, 2016	0.70

The correlation between FCOM and RFDA shifts across timeframes, from 0.52 (1 year) to 0.72 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FCOM vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCOM	RFDA
Communication Services	89.6%	6.2%
Technology	8.0%	15.4%
Industrials	1.7%	9.3%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	8.1%
Real Estate	0.1%	5.1%
Basic Materials	-	1.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.1%
Energy	-	11.1%
Financial Services	-	18.8%
Healthcare	-	12.2%
Utilities	-	4.9%

Return for Risk

FCOM vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCOM

FCOM Risk / Return Rank: 26
FCOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
FCOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
FCOM Omega Ratio Rank: 25
FCOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
FCOM Martin Ratio Rank: 28

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 91
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 90
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

FCOM vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). 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	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.61	2.36	-1.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.98	3.23	-2.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.43	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.78	5.04	-4.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.32	18.04	-15.72

FCOM vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCOM Sharpe Ratio is 0.61, which is lower than the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCOM and RFDA, 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. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCOM drawdown since its inception was -46.76%, which is greater than RFDA's maximum drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCOM and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCOM	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.76%	-34.60%	-12.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.48%	-5.45%	-8.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.16%	-19.35%	-1.81%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-46.76%	-19.35%	-27.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.76%	-34.60%	-12.16%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.80%	-0.06%	-5.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.64%	-3.70%	-4.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.51%	1.52%	+2.99%

Volatility

FCOM vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) has a higher volatility of 7.50% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 2.90%. This indicates that FCOM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RFDA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCOM	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.50%	2.90%	+4.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.77%	8.68%	+5.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.20%	11.67%	+5.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.47%	15.73%	+5.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.10%	16.84%	+4.26%

FCOM vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCOM has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCOM vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

FCOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%, less than RFDA's 1.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCOM Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF	0.99%	0.88%	0.87%	0.77%	1.04%	0.90%	0.68%	0.86%	2.78%	11.70%	2.27%	2.92%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.76%	1.89%	2.23%	2.68%	3.57%	1.44%	1.62%	1.87%	2.44%	1.90%	0.98%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCOM and RFDA in my portfolio?

FCOM and RFDA have a correlation of 0.52, 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 RFDA?

FCOM has higher volatility (7.50%) compared to RFDA (2.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCOM dropped -46.76% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, FCOM or RFDA?

On 10-year performance, RFDA leads with 13.34% vs 11.07% for FCOM. On fees, FCOM is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 2.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FCOM or RFDA?

Over the 10-year period, RFDA has performed better with a 13.34% return vs 11.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCOM or RFDA?

FCOM is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.

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

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.76%, compared with 0.99% for FCOM.

What is the main difference between FCOM and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FCOM and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 0.61), 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.