FDEM vs. QAT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FDEM (Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF) and QAT (iShares MSCI Qatar ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - FDEM tracks the Fidelity Targeted Emerging Markets Factor Index while QAT tracks the MSCI All Qatar Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FDEM returned 8.86%/yr vs 3.56%/yr for QAT. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FDEM charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for QAT.

Performance

FDEM vs. QAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF (FDEM) and iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDEM achieves a 18.08% return, which is significantly higher than QAT's 1.01% return.

FDEM

• 1D: -5.08%
• 1M: 1.30%
• YTD: 18.08%
• 6M: 19.00%
• 1Y: 36.64%
• 3Y*: 22.34%
• 5Y*: 8.86%
• 10Y*: —

QAT

• 1D: -0.39%
• 1M: 2.08%
• YTD: 1.01%
• 6M: 0.41%
• 1Y: 7.11%
• 3Y*: 5.84%
• 5Y*: 3.56%
• 10Y*: 4.43%

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

FDEM vs. QAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FDEM Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF	18.08%	26.75%	9.34%	17.26%	-13.11%	-3.52%	8.87%	5.60%
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF	1.01%	8.81%	5.20%	2.72%	-7.23%	14.42%	6.94%	0.05%

Correlation

The correlation between FDEM and QAT is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.29
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2019	0.35

FDEM vs. QAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDEM	QAT
Technology	38.5%	1.0%
Financial Services	15.0%	55.5%
Consumer Cyclical	11.5%	0.7%
Communication Services	9.6%	6.3%
Energy	7.3%	7.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.5%	0.6%
Real Estate	4.6%	4.0%
Industrials	4.4%	8.4%
Basic Materials	2.7%	12.6%
Healthcare	-	0.8%
Utilities	-	2.5%

Return for Risk

FDEM vs. QAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDEM

FDEM Risk / Return Rank: 59
FDEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
FDEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
FDEM Omega Ratio Rank: 62
FDEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
FDEM Martin Ratio Rank: 63

QAT

QAT Risk / Return Rank: 17
QAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
QAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
QAT Omega Ratio Rank: 17
QAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
QAT Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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. QAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF (FDEM) and iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT). 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	QAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	0.54	+1.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.42	0.87	+1.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.11	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	0.67	+2.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.86	1.24	+9.62

FDEM vs. QAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is higher than the QAT Sharpe Ratio of 0.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDEM and QAT, 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. QAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDEM drawdown since its inception was -33.65%, smaller than the maximum QAT drawdown of -45.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDEM and QAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDEM	QAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.65%	-45.21%	+11.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.70%	-10.60%	-2.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.04%	-17.41%	+1.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.47%	-33.17%	+4.70%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.04%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.09%	-11.55%	+6.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.80%	-19.14%	+10.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.38%	5.75%	-2.37%

Volatility

FDEM vs. QAT - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF (FDEM) has a higher volatility of 11.27% compared to iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) at 5.72%. This indicates that FDEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDEM	QAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.27%	5.72%	+5.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.06%	11.06%	+7.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.86%	13.25%	+6.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.72%	15.06%	+1.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.23%	17.54%	+0.69%

FDEM vs. QAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDEM has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than QAT's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDEM vs. QAT - Dividend Comparison

FDEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.96%, less than QAT's 4.63% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FDEM Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF	2.96%	3.23%	4.05%	4.41%	3.95%	2.71%	1.84%	2.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF	4.63%	3.51%	5.90%	3.92%	4.78%	2.33%	2.63%	3.57%	4.63%	4.10%	3.51%	4.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDEM and QAT in my portfolio?

FDEM and QAT have a correlation of 0.31, 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 QAT?

FDEM has higher volatility (11.27%) compared to QAT (5.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDEM dropped -33.65% vs QAT's -45.21%.

Which ETF is better, FDEM or QAT?

On 5-year performance, FDEM leads with 8.86% vs 3.56% for QAT. On fees, FDEM is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, QAT has been the lower-risk option at 5.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDEM or QAT?

Over the 5-year period, FDEM has performed better with a 8.86% return vs 3.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDEM or QAT?

FDEM is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for QAT.

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

QAT has the higher dividend yield at 4.63%, compared with 2.96% for FDEM.

What is the main difference between FDEM and QAT?

FDEM tracks Fidelity Targeted Emerging Markets Factor Index, while QAT tracks MSCI All Qatar Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for FDEM and 0.59% for QAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.85 vs 0.54), 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.