FDCF vs. MUSQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FDCF (Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF) and MUSQ (MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF) are both Communications Equities funds. FDCF is actively managed, while MUSQ is passively managed. Over the past year, FDCF returned 23.52% vs -4.15% for MUSQ. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FDCF charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.76%/yr for MUSQ.

Performance

FDCF vs. MUSQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF (FDCF) and MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDCF achieves a 5.62% return, which is significantly higher than MUSQ's -8.93% return.

FDCF

• 1D: -1.77%
• 1M: 3.38%
• YTD: 5.62%
• 6M: 7.71%
• 1Y: 23.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MUSQ

• 1D: -2.16%
• 1M: 1.10%
• YTD: -8.93%
• 6M: -6.37%
• 1Y: -4.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FDCF vs. MUSQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF	5.62%	27.42%	28.37%	14.76%
MUSQ MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF	-8.93%	19.60%	-4.94%	1.76%

Correlation

The correlation between FDCF and MUSQ is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 10, 2023	0.72

The correlation between FDCF and MUSQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDCF vs. MUSQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDCF	MUSQ
Communication Services	50.2%	76.9%
Technology	36.5%	10.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.9%	12.1%
Industrials	1.4%	0.7%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FDCF vs. MUSQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDCF

FDCF Risk / Return Rank: 31
FDCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
FDCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
FDCF Omega Ratio Rank: 34
FDCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FDCF Martin Ratio Rank: 28

MUSQ

MUSQ Risk / Return Rank: 7
MUSQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
MUSQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
MUSQ Omega Ratio Rank: 6
MUSQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
MUSQ Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

FDCF vs. MUSQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF (FDCF) and MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ). 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.

	FDCF	MUSQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.29	-0.25	+1.54
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	-0.24	+2.03
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	0.97	+0.26
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.31	-0.18	+1.49
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.95	-0.44	+4.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FDCF vs. MUSQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDCF Sharpe Ratio is 1.29, which is higher than the MUSQ Sharpe Ratio of -0.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDCF and MUSQ, 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

	FDCF	MUSQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.29	-0.25	+1.54
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.29	0.10	+1.19

Drawdowns

FDCF vs. MUSQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDCF drawdown since its inception was -22.53%, roughly equal to the maximum MUSQ drawdown of -23.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDCF and MUSQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDCF	MUSQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.53%	-23.11%	+0.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.10%	-23.11%	+5.01%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.90%	-15.04%	+13.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.17%	-6.58%	+2.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.97%	9.43%	-3.46%

Volatility

FDCF vs. MUSQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF (FDCF) is 4.28%, while MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ) has a volatility of 4.86%. This indicates that FDCF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MUSQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDCF	MUSQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.28%	4.86%	-0.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.98%	13.18%	+0.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.36%	16.81%	+1.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.58%	17.86%	+2.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.58%	17.86%	+2.72%

FDCF vs. MUSQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDCF has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than MUSQ's 0.76% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDCF vs. MUSQ - Dividend Comparison

FDCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.03%, less than MUSQ's 0.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF	0.03%	0.09%	0.25%	0.19%
MUSQ MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF	0.69%	0.63%	1.08%	0.74%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDCF and MUSQ in my portfolio?

FDCF and MUSQ have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDCF or MUSQ?

MUSQ has higher volatility (4.86%) compared to FDCF (4.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDCF dropped -22.53% vs MUSQ's -23.11%.

Which ETF is better, FDCF or MUSQ?

On 1-year performance, FDCF leads with 23.52% vs -4.15% for MUSQ. On fees, FDCF is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FDCF has been the lower-risk option at 4.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDCF or MUSQ?

Over the 1-year period, FDCF has performed better with a 23.52% return vs -4.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDCF or MUSQ?

FDCF is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.76% for MUSQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDCF or MUSQ?

MUSQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.69%, compared with 0.03% for FDCF.

What is the main difference between FDCF and MUSQ?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Exchange Traded Concepts. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FDCF and 0.76% for MUSQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDCF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.29 vs -0.25), 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.