FDEM vs. AUSF

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

FDEM (Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF) and AUSF (Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FDEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the Fidelity Targeted Emerging Markets Factor Index, while AUSF is a Mid Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Adaptive Wealth Strategies U.S. Factor Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FDEM returned 9.14%/yr vs 13.35%/yr for AUSF. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FDEM charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for AUSF.

Performance

FDEM vs. AUSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF (FDEM) and Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF (AUSF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDEM achieves a 20.05% return, which is significantly higher than AUSF's 9.27% return.

FDEM

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 0.88%
• YTD: 20.05%
• 6M: 22.29%
• 1Y: 38.42%
• 3Y*: 21.94%
• 5Y*: 9.14%
• 10Y*: —

AUSF

• 1D: 0.70%
• 1M: 2.94%
• YTD: 9.27%
• 6M: 8.68%
• 1Y: 17.75%
• 3Y*: 19.94%
• 5Y*: 13.35%
• 10Y*: —

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

FDEM vs. AUSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FDEM Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF	20.05%	26.75%	9.34%	17.26%	-13.11%	-3.52%	8.87%	5.60%
AUSF Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF	9.27%	13.69%	16.05%	22.26%	-0.18%	27.48%	1.27%	12.21%

Correlation

The correlation between FDEM and AUSF is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.28
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.38
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2019	0.48

The correlation between FDEM and AUSF shifts across timeframes, from 0.28 (1 year) to 0.48 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FDEM vs. AUSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDEM	AUSF
Technology	38.5%	15.3%
Financial Services	15.0%	18.4%
Consumer Cyclical	11.5%	9.3%
Communication Services	9.6%	8.6%
Energy	7.3%	3.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.5%	7.8%
Real Estate	4.6%	4.6%
Industrials	4.4%	14.4%
Basic Materials	2.7%	2.6%
Healthcare	-	11.4%
Utilities	-	4.4%

Return for Risk

FDEM vs. AUSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDEM

FDEM Risk / Return Rank: 67
FDEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
FDEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
FDEM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
FDEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
FDEM Martin Ratio Rank: 68

AUSF

AUSF Risk / Return Rank: 57
AUSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
AUSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
AUSF Omega Ratio Rank: 52
AUSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
AUSF Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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.

FDEM vs. AUSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF (FDEM) and Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF (AUSF). 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.

	FDEM	AUSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	1.65	+0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	2.38	+0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.28	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.88	2.86	+0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.85	8.29	+2.56

FDEM vs. AUSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is comparable to the AUSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDEM and AUSF, 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

FDEM vs. AUSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDEM drawdown since its inception was -33.65%, smaller than the maximum AUSF drawdown of -44.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDEM and AUSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDEM	AUSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.65%	-44.25%	+10.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.70%	-5.84%	-6.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.04%	-12.29%	-3.75%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.47%	-14.23%	-14.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.51%	0.00%	-3.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.82%	-4.21%	-4.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.37%	2.02%	+1.35%

Volatility

FDEM vs. AUSF - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF (FDEM) has a higher volatility of 9.65% compared to Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF (AUSF) at 2.70%. This indicates that FDEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AUSF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDEM	AUSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.65%	2.70%	+6.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.93%	6.72%	+10.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.94%	10.14%	+8.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.48%	13.66%	+2.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.10%	19.04%	-0.94%

FDEM vs. AUSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDEM has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than AUSF's 0.27% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDEM vs. AUSF - Dividend Comparison

FDEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.72%, more than AUSF's 2.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
AUSF Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF	2.69%	2.78%	2.63%	1.83%	2.51%	2.22%	2.95%	4.02%	1.46%
FDEM Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF	2.72%	3.23%	4.05%	4.41%	3.95%	2.71%	1.84%	2.39%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDEM and AUSF in my portfolio?

FDEM and AUSF have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDEM or AUSF?

FDEM has higher volatility (9.65%) compared to AUSF (2.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDEM dropped -33.65% vs AUSF's -44.25%.

Which ETF is better, FDEM or AUSF?

On 5-year performance, AUSF leads with 13.35% vs 9.14% for FDEM. On fees, AUSF is cheaper at 0.27% per year. On volatility, AUSF has been the lower-risk option at 2.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDEM or AUSF?

Over the 5-year period, AUSF has performed better with a 13.35% return vs 9.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDEM or AUSF?

AUSF is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for FDEM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDEM or AUSF?

FDEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.72%, compared with 2.69% for AUSF.

What is the main difference between FDEM and AUSF?

FDEM is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while AUSF is Mid Cap Value Equities. FDEM tracks Fidelity Targeted Emerging Markets Factor Index, while AUSF tracks Adaptive Wealth Strategies U.S. Factor Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for FDEM and 0.27% for AUSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs 1.65), 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.