FCVFX vs. NCBVX

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FCVFX (Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C) and NCBVX (PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund) are both Mid Cap Value Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, FCVFX returned 12.35%/yr vs 7.67%/yr for NCBVX. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FCVFX charges 1.90%/yr vs 1.95%/yr for NCBVX.

Performance

FCVFX vs. NCBVX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C (FCVFX) and PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund (NCBVX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCVFX achieves a 15.86% return, which is significantly higher than NCBVX's 14.99% return. Over the past 10 years, FCVFX has outperformed NCBVX with an annualized return of 12.35%, while NCBVX has yielded a comparatively lower 7.67% annualized return.

FCVFX

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 1.99%
• YTD: 15.86%
• 6M: 18.65%
• 1Y: 34.92%
• 3Y*: 22.76%
• 5Y*: 11.87%
• 10Y*: 12.35%

NCBVX

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 3.27%
• YTD: 14.99%
• 6M: 16.13%
• 1Y: 30.71%
• 3Y*: 17.25%
• 5Y*: 7.47%
• 10Y*: 7.67%

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

FCVFX vs. NCBVX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FCVFX Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C	15.86%	10.14%	24.29%	18.53%	-10.07%	33.72%	8.57%	30.36%	-18.65%	14.05%
NCBVX PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund	14.99%	11.86%	10.49%	10.40%	-10.18%	33.13%	-7.31%	18.78%	-20.51%	11.63%

Correlation

The correlation between FCVFX and NCBVX is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 26, 2003	0.96

The correlation between FCVFX and NCBVX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FCVFX vs. NCBVX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCVFX

FCVFX Risk / Return Rank: 58
FCVFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
FCVFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
FCVFX Omega Ratio Rank: 47
FCVFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
FCVFX Martin Ratio Rank: 62

NCBVX

NCBVX Risk / Return Rank: 73
NCBVX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
NCBVX Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
NCBVX Omega Ratio Rank: 56
NCBVX Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
NCBVX Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

FCVFX vs. NCBVX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C (FCVFX) and PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund (NCBVX). 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.

	FCVFX	NCBVX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	2.37	-0.22
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	3.38	-0.27
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.42	-0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.37	4.83	-1.47
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.36	17.56	-5.20
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FCVFX vs. NCBVX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCVFX Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is comparable to the NCBVX Sharpe Ratio of 2.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCVFX and NCBVX, 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

	FCVFX	NCBVX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.15	2.37	-0.22
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56	0.40	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55	0.34	+0.21
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.42	0.41	+0.01

Drawdowns

FCVFX vs. NCBVX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCVFX drawdown since its inception was -65.18%, which is greater than NCBVX's maximum drawdown of -60.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCVFX and NCBVX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCVFX	NCBVX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.18%	-60.64%	-4.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.99%	-6.31%	-3.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.74%	-21.27%	-0.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.11%	-23.15%	+0.04%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-48.67%	-57.50%	+8.83%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.06%	-9.10%	+0.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.72%	1.74%	+0.98%

Volatility

FCVFX vs. NCBVX - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C (FCVFX) has a higher volatility of 4.18% compared to PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund (NCBVX) at 3.46%. This indicates that FCVFX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NCBVX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCVFX	NCBVX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.18%	3.46%	+0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.43%	9.40%	+2.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.12%	13.04%	+3.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.31%	18.81%	+2.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.56%	22.67%	-0.11%

FCVFX vs. NCBVX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCVFX has a 1.90% expense ratio, which is lower than NCBVX's 1.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCVFX vs. NCBVX - Dividend Comparison

FCVFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.09%, more than NCBVX's 0.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCVFX Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C	7.09%	8.22%	25.20%	0.12%	0.00%	4.16%	0.00%	2.46%	14.34%	2.34%	0.00%	1.94%
NCBVX PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund	0.59%	0.68%	1.03%	1.59%	1.17%	0.74%	1.60%	1.93%	13.70%	6.69%	2.83%	7.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCVFX and NCBVX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, FCVFX and NCBVX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FCVFX or NCBVX?

FCVFX has higher volatility (4.18%) compared to NCBVX (3.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCVFX dropped -65.18% vs NCBVX's -60.64%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NCBVX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.37 vs 2.15), 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.