FDCF vs. XLC

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FDCF (Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF) and XLC (Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund) are both Communications Equities funds. FDCF is actively managed, while XLC is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FDCF returned 25.42%/yr vs 19.94%/yr for XLC. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FDCF charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.13%/yr for XLC.

Performance

FDCF vs. XLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF (FDCF) and Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDCF achieves a 2.31% return, which is significantly higher than XLC's -8.70% return.

FDCF

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: -0.46%
• YTD: 2.31%
• 6M: 2.81%
• 1Y: 17.89%
• 3Y*: 25.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XLC

• 1D: -2.11%
• 1M: -7.21%
• YTD: -8.70%
• 6M: -7.87%
• 1Y: 5.47%
• 3Y*: 19.94%
• 5Y*: 7.11%
• 10Y*: —

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

FDCF vs. XLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF	2.31%	27.42%	28.37%	17.50%
XLC Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund	-8.70%	23.08%	34.71%	15.71%

Correlation

The correlation between FDCF and XLC is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2023	0.74

The correlation between FDCF and XLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDCF vs. XLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDCF	XLC
Communication Services	44.7%	95.6%
Technology	42.9%	4.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	-
Industrials	1.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FDCF vs. XLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDCF

FDCF Risk / Return Rank: 24
FDCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
FDCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
FDCF Omega Ratio Rank: 25
FDCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
FDCF Martin Ratio Rank: 24

XLC

XLC Risk / Return Rank: 14
XLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
XLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
XLC Omega Ratio Rank: 13
XLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
XLC Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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. XLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF (FDCF) and Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLC). 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.

	FDCF	XLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.94	0.41	+0.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.35	0.66	+0.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.08	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.99	0.52	+0.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.96	1.56	+1.40

FDCF vs. XLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDCF Sharpe Ratio is 0.94, which is higher than the XLC Sharpe Ratio of 0.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDCF and XLC, 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

FDCF vs. XLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDCF drawdown since its inception was -22.53%, smaller than the maximum XLC drawdown of -46.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDCF and XLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDCF	XLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.53%	-46.65%	+24.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.10%	-10.57%	-7.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.53%	-17.97%	-4.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-46.65%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.97%	-10.49%	+5.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.17%	-10.57%	+6.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.06%	3.52%	+2.54%

Volatility

FDCF vs. XLC - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF (FDCF) has a higher volatility of 7.13% compared to Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLC) at 4.63%. This indicates that FDCF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDCF	XLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.13%	4.63%	+2.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.00%	10.25%	+4.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.21%	13.57%	+5.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.72%	20.74%	-0.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.72%	22.18%	-1.46%

FDCF vs. XLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDCF has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than XLC's 0.13% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDCF vs. XLC - Dividend Comparison

FDCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than XLC's 1.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF	0.07%	0.09%	0.25%	0.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XLC Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund	1.57%	1.13%	0.99%	0.82%	1.10%	0.74%	0.68%	0.82%	0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDCF and XLC in my portfolio?

FDCF and XLC have a correlation of 0.67, 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 XLC?

FDCF has higher volatility (7.13%) compared to XLC (4.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDCF dropped -22.53% vs XLC's -46.65%.

Which ETF is better, FDCF or XLC?

On 3-year performance, FDCF leads with 25.42% vs 19.94% for XLC. On fees, XLC is cheaper at 0.13% per year. On volatility, XLC has been the lower-risk option at 4.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDCF or XLC?

Over the 3-year period, FDCF has performed better with a 25.42% return vs 19.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDCF or XLC?

XLC is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FDCF.

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

XLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.57%, compared with 0.07% for FDCF.

What is the main difference between FDCF and XLC?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FDCF and 0.13% for XLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDCF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.94 vs 0.41), 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.