FDIF vs. EQL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FDIF (Fidelity Disruptors ETF) and EQL (ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FDIF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while EQL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the NYSE Equal Sector Weight Index. FDIF is actively managed, while EQL is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FDIF returned 17.17%/yr vs 15.88%/yr for EQL. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FDIF charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for EQL.

Performance

FDIF vs. EQL - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with FDIF having a 8.49% return and EQL slightly lower at 8.44%.

FDIF

• 1D: -2.20%
• 1M: 2.28%
• YTD: 8.49%
• 6M: 7.46%
• 1Y: 20.38%
• 3Y*: 17.17%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EQL

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: -0.97%
• YTD: 8.44%
• 6M: 7.90%
• 1Y: 17.48%
• 3Y*: 15.88%
• 5Y*: 10.58%
• 10Y*: 12.66%

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

FDIF vs. EQL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FDIF Fidelity Disruptors ETF	8.49%	13.83%	19.74%	5.83%
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF	8.44%	13.09%	16.44%	7.12%

Correlation

The correlation between FDIF and EQL is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 20, 2023	0.73

The correlation between FDIF and EQL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDIF vs. EQL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDIF	EQL
Technology	40.4%	12.3%
Healthcare	16.9%	8.7%
Communication Services	13.5%	8.8%
Industrials	12.1%	8.5%
Financial Services	11.6%	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	5.3%	10.7%
Real Estate	0.1%	9.2%
Basic Materials	-	8.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	8.6%
Energy	-	8.0%
Utilities	-	8.4%

Return for Risk

FDIF vs. EQL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDIF

FDIF Risk / Return Rank: 32
FDIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
FDIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
FDIF Omega Ratio Rank: 32
FDIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
FDIF Martin Ratio Rank: 36

EQL

EQL Risk / Return Rank: 58
EQL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
EQL Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
EQL Omega Ratio Rank: 54
EQL Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
EQL Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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. EQL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) and ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL). 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.

	FDIF	EQL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.13	1.84	-0.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.61	2.57	-0.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.33	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.38	2.84	-1.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.16	10.95	-5.78

FDIF vs. EQL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is lower than the EQL Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDIF and EQL, 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

FDIF vs. EQL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDIF drawdown since its inception was -22.63%, smaller than the maximum EQL drawdown of -35.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDIF and EQL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDIF	EQL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.63%	-35.65%	+13.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.80%	-6.19%	-8.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.63%	-15.07%	-7.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.24%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.65%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.41%	-1.76%	-0.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.81%	-3.25%	-0.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.96%	1.60%	+2.36%

Volatility

FDIF vs. EQL - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) has a higher volatility of 7.68% compared to ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL) at 3.08%. This indicates that FDIF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EQL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDIF	EQL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.68%	3.08%	+4.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.87%	7.20%	+7.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.15%	9.59%	+8.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.87%	14.56%	+4.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.87%	16.54%	+2.33%

FDIF vs. EQL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDIF has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than EQL's 0.27% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDIF vs. EQL - Dividend Comparison

FDIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.27%, less than EQL's 1.63% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF	1.63%	1.73%	1.78%	1.96%	2.14%	1.69%	2.29%	1.95%	2.39%	1.97%	2.89%	2.07%
FDIF Fidelity Disruptors ETF	0.27%	0.36%	0.35%	0.21%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDIF and EQL in my portfolio?

FDIF and EQL have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDIF or EQL?

FDIF has higher volatility (7.68%) compared to EQL (3.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDIF dropped -22.63% vs EQL's -35.65%.

Which ETF is better, FDIF or EQL?

On 3-year performance, FDIF leads with 17.17% vs 15.88% for EQL. On fees, EQL is cheaper at 0.27% per year. On volatility, EQL has been the lower-risk option at 3.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDIF or EQL?

Over the 3-year period, FDIF has performed better with a 17.17% return vs 15.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDIF or EQL?

EQL is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FDIF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDIF or EQL?

EQL has the higher dividend yield at 1.63%, compared with 0.27% for FDIF.

What is the main difference between FDIF and EQL?

FDIF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while EQL is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FDIF and 0.27% for EQL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EQL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 1.13), 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.