FCUV.TO vs. NNRG.NEO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FCUV.TO (Fidelity U.S. Value ETF) and NNRG.NEO (Ninepoint Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FCUV.TO is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Fidelity Canada U.S. Value Index, while NNRG.NEO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P/TSX Capped Energy Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FCUV.TO returned 21.89%/yr vs 33.81%/yr for NNRG.NEO. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FCUV.TO charges 0.38%/yr vs 1.79%/yr for NNRG.NEO.

Performance

FCUV.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Fidelity U.S. Value ETF (FCUV.TO) and Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCUV.TO achieves a 15.14% return, which is significantly lower than NNRG.NEO's 45.59% return.

FCUV.TO

• 1D: 0.33%
• 1M: 8.58%
• YTD: 15.14%
• 6M: 12.61%
• 1Y: 34.52%
• 3Y*: 26.57%
• 5Y*: 21.89%
• 10Y*: —

NNRG.NEO

• 1D: 1.60%
• 1M: -1.33%
• YTD: 45.59%
• 6M: 38.09%
• 1Y: 66.96%
• 3Y*: 26.11%
• 5Y*: 33.81%
• 10Y*: —

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

FCUV.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FCUV.TO Fidelity U.S. Value ETF	15.14%	14.80%	35.81%	19.98%	2.58%	20.73%
NNRG.NEO Ninepoint Energy ETF	45.59%	19.14%	13.26%	-4.21%	66.18%	55.91%

Correlation

The correlation between FCUV.TO and NNRG.NEO is -0.11, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.11
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.19
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2021	0.29

The correlation between FCUV.TO and NNRG.NEO shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.29 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FCUV.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCUV.TO	NNRG.NEO
Technology	27.5%	-
Financial Services	18.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	15.3%	-
Industrials	14.1%	-
Basic Materials	9.2%	-
Utilities	8.5%	-
Communication Services	3.6%	-
Healthcare	3.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	100.0%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

FCUV.TO vs. NNRG.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCUV.TO

FCUV.TO Risk / Return Rank: 79
FCUV.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
FCUV.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
FCUV.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 73
FCUV.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
FCUV.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 86

NNRG.NEO

NNRG.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 79
NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
NNRG.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
NNRG.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 75
NNRG.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
NNRG.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

FCUV.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity U.S. Value ETF (FCUV.TO) and Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO). 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.

	FCUV.TO	NNRG.NEO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	2.74	-0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.33	3.29	+0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.45	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.18	6.21	-1.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.28	13.09	+5.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FCUV.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCUV.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is comparable to the NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 2.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCUV.TO and NNRG.NEO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FCUV.TO	NNRG.NEO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.46	2.74	-0.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.45	0.98	+0.47
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.55	1.07	+0.48

Drawdowns

FCUV.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCUV.TO drawdown since its inception was -16.47%, smaller than the maximum NNRG.NEO drawdown of -35.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCUV.TO and NNRG.NEO.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCUV.TO	NNRG.NEO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.47%	-35.78%	+19.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.70%	-10.84%	+4.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.47%	-23.52%	+7.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.47%	-35.78%	+19.31%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.17%	-4.70%	+3.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.52%	-9.58%	+7.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	5.13%	-3.23%

Volatility

FCUV.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity U.S. Value ETF (FCUV.TO) is 5.31%, while Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) has a volatility of 10.24%. This indicates that FCUV.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NNRG.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCUV.TO	NNRG.NEO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.31%	10.24%	-4.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.95%	20.69%	-9.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.13%	24.53%	-10.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.14%	34.60%	-19.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.72%	34.56%	-19.84%

FCUV.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCUV.TO has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is lower than NNRG.NEO's 1.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCUV.TO vs. NNRG.NEO - Dividend Comparison

FCUV.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, more than NNRG.NEO's 0.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FCUV.TO Fidelity U.S. Value ETF	0.91%	1.13%	1.03%	1.42%	2.71%	1.40%	1.14%
NNRG.NEO Ninepoint Energy ETF	0.51%	0.37%	0.39%	0.38%	9.08%	1.92%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCUV.TO and NNRG.NEO in my portfolio?

FCUV.TO and NNRG.NEO have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FCUV.TO or NNRG.NEO?

On fees, FCUV.TO is cheaper at 0.38% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCUV.TO or NNRG.NEO?

FCUV.TO is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 1.79% for NNRG.NEO.

What is the main difference between FCUV.TO and NNRG.NEO?

FCUV.TO is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while NNRG.NEO is Energy Equities. FCUV.TO tracks Fidelity Canada U.S. Value Index, while NNRG.NEO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Energy Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Ninepoint. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for FCUV.TO and 1.79% for NNRG.NEO.