FDCF vs. XLC

Last updated Aug 2, 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 21.06%/yr vs 17.68%/yr for XLC. Their 0.73 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. 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 0.82% return, which is significantly higher than XLC's -7.52% return.

FDCF

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: -3.29%
• 6M: 2.60%
• YTD: 0.82%
• 1Y: 9.32%
• 3Y*: 21.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 23.49%

XLC

• 1D: 1.56%
• 1M: -1.24%
• 6M: -9.34%
• YTD: -7.52%
• 1Y: 3.28%
• 3Y*: 17.68%
• 5Y*: 6.70%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.13%

*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)
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF	$337.50K	$344.89K	$440.84K
XLC Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund	$698.01M	$724.28M	$715.77M

FDCF vs. XLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF	0.82%	27.42%	28.37%	17.50%
XLC Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund	-7.52%	23.08%	34.71%	15.71%

Correlation

The correlation between FDCF and XLC is 0.64, 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.	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2023	0.73

The correlation between FDCF and XLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDCF vs. XLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDCF	XLC
Communication Services	48.5%	89.5%
Technology	36.8%	10.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.8%	-
Industrials	4.9%	-
Financial Services	0.3%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FDCF vs. XLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDCF

FDCF Risk / Return Rank: 18
FDCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
FDCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
FDCF Omega Ratio Rank: 18
FDCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
FDCF Martin Ratio Rank: 19

XLC

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

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.

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	0.34	0.14	+0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.60	0.29	+0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.04	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.38	0.17	+0.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.08	0.45	+0.63

FDCF vs. XLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDCF Sharpe Ratio is 0.34, which is higher than the XLC Sharpe Ratio of 0.14. 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%	-11.73%	-6.37%
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	-6.35%	-9.34%	+2.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.18%	-10.54%	+6.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.28%	4.55%	+1.73%

Volatility

FDCF vs. XLC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF (FDCF) is 4.96%, while Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLC) has a volatility of 6.53%. This indicates that FDCF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky 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	4.96%	6.53%	-1.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.77%	11.77%	+4.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.75%	14.79%	+4.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.69%	20.87%	-0.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.69%	22.17%	-1.48%

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 1.32% 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	1.32%	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 0.64, 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?

XLC has higher volatility (6.53%) compared to FDCF (4.96%). 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 21.06% vs 17.68% for XLC. On fees, XLC is cheaper at 0.13% per year. On volatility, FDCF has been the lower-risk option at 4.96%. 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 21.06% return vs 17.68%. 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 1.32%, 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 (0.34 vs 0.14), 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.