PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FDIF vs. DARP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FDIF vs. DARP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDIF achieves a 10.12% return, which is significantly lower than DARP's 32.67% return.


FDIF

1D
-0.90%
1M
5.86%
YTD
10.12%
6M
10.33%
1Y
22.85%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

DARP

1D
-0.76%
1M
8.18%
YTD
32.67%
6M
34.22%
1Y
82.62%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FDIF vs. DARP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
FDIF
Fidelity Disruptors ETF
10.12%13.83%19.74%11.80%
DARP
Grizzle Growth ETF
32.67%40.19%24.63%6.25%

Correlation

The correlation between FDIF and DARP is 0.74, 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

0.74

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 29, 2023

0.80

The correlation between FDIF and DARP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDIF vs. DARP - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FDIF
DARP

Technology

38.5%
45.8%

Healthcare

17.8%
1.4%

Communication Services

13.8%
19.4%

Industrials

12.0%
12.0%

Financial Services

11.8%

-

Consumer Cyclical

6.1%
6.6%

Real Estate

0.1%

-

Basic Materials

-

4.7%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

9.9%

Utilities

-

5.4%

Technology

FDIF
38.5%
DARP
45.8%

Healthcare

FDIF
17.8%
DARP
1.4%

Communication Services

FDIF
13.8%
DARP
19.4%

Industrials

FDIF
12.0%
DARP
12.0%

Financial Services

FDIF
11.8%
DARP

-

Consumer Cyclical

FDIF
6.1%
DARP
6.6%

Real Estate

FDIF
0.1%
DARP

-

Basic Materials

FDIF

-

DARP
4.7%

Consumer Defensive

FDIF

-

DARP

-

Energy

FDIF

-

DARP
9.9%

Utilities

FDIF

-

DARP
5.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

FDIF vs. DARP — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDIF
FDIF Risk / Return Rank: 3636
Overall Rank
FDIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FDIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
FDIF Omega Ratio Rank: 3636
Omega Ratio Rank
FDIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
FDIF Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
Martin Ratio Rank

DARP
DARP Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
DARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
DARP Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
DARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
DARP Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FDIF vs. DARP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). 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.


FDIFDARPDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.35

3.59

-2.24

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.91

4.03

-2.12

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.54

-0.31

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.55

7.03

-5.48

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

5.86

26.75

-20.89

FDIF vs. DARP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.35, which is lower than the DARP Sharpe Ratio of 3.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDIF and DARP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FDIFDARPDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.35

3.59

-2.24

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.93

1.49

-0.56

Drawdowns

FDIF vs. DARP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDIF drawdown since its inception was -22.63%, smaller than the maximum DARP drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDIF and DARP.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FDIFDARPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-22.63%

-30.27%

+7.64%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.80%

-11.82%

-2.98%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.90%

-0.76%

-0.14%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.83%

-4.64%

+0.81%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.91%

3.10%

+0.81%

Volatility

FDIF vs. DARP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) is 4.11%, while Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP) has a volatility of 7.07%. This indicates that FDIF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DARP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FDIFDARPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.11%

7.07%

-2.96%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.37%

17.49%

-4.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.02%

23.16%

-6.14%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.59%

26.11%

-7.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.59%

26.11%

-7.52%

FDIF vs. DARP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDIF has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than DARP's 0.75% expense ratio.


Dividends

FDIF vs. DARP - Dividend Comparison

FDIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.30%, less than DARP's 0.33% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
DARP
Grizzle Growth ETF
0.33%0.43%1.93%0.32%
FDIF
Fidelity Disruptors ETF
0.30%0.36%0.35%0.21%

Frequently Asked Questions


FDIF and DARP have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

DARP has higher volatility (7.07%) compared to FDIF (4.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDIF dropped -22.63% vs DARP's -30.27%.

On 1-year performance, DARP leads with 82.62% vs 22.85% for FDIF. On fees, FDIF is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FDIF has been the lower-risk option at 4.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, DARP has performed better with a 82.62% return vs 22.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FDIF is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for DARP.

DARP has the higher dividend yield at 0.33%, compared with 0.30% for FDIF.

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Grizzle. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FDIF and 0.75% for DARP.

DARP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.59 vs 1.35), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FDIF and DARP

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer