FDIF vs. NUKZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FDIF (Fidelity Disruptors ETF) and NUKZ (Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FDIF is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while NUKZ is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Range Nuclear Renaissance Index. FDIF is actively managed, while NUKZ is passively managed. Over the past year, FDIF returned 22.85% vs 41.42% for NUKZ. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FDIF charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for NUKZ.

Performance

FDIF vs. NUKZ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDIF achieves a 10.12% return, which is significantly lower than NUKZ's 13.31% return.

FDIF

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

NUKZ

• 1D: -2.59%
• 1M: -0.90%
• YTD: 13.31%
• 6M: 10.66%
• 1Y: 41.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FDIF vs. NUKZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FDIF Fidelity Disruptors ETF	10.12%	13.83%	18.53%
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	13.31%	56.57%	62.98%

Correlation

The correlation between FDIF and NUKZ is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2024	0.67

The correlation between FDIF and NUKZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDIF vs. NUKZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDIF	NUKZ
Technology	38.5%	1.4%
Healthcare	17.8%	-
Communication Services	13.8%	-
Industrials	12.0%	45.9%
Financial Services	11.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	6.1%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	4.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	12.9%
Utilities	-	35.8%

Return for Risk

FDIF vs. NUKZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDIF

FDIF Risk / Return Rank: 36
FDIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FDIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
FDIF Omega Ratio Rank: 36
FDIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
FDIF Martin Ratio Rank: 37

NUKZ

NUKZ Risk / Return Rank: 40
NUKZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
NUKZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
NUKZ Omega Ratio Rank: 34
NUKZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
NUKZ Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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. NUKZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) and Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ). 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.

	FDIF	NUKZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.35	1.40	-0.05
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	2.02	-0.10
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.23	0.00
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.55	2.52	-0.97
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.86	6.34	-0.48
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FDIF vs. NUKZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.35, which is comparable to the NUKZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDIF and NUKZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FDIF	NUKZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.35	1.40	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.93	1.75	-0.82

Drawdowns

FDIF vs. NUKZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDIF drawdown since its inception was -22.63%, smaller than the maximum NUKZ drawdown of -33.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDIF and NUKZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDIF	NUKZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.63%	-33.03%	+10.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.80%	-16.51%	+1.71%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.90%	-5.61%	+4.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-6.01%	+2.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.91%	6.55%	-2.64%

Volatility

FDIF vs. NUKZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) is 4.11%, while Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) has a volatility of 10.30%. This indicates that FDIF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NUKZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDIF	NUKZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.11%	10.30%	-6.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.37%	22.05%	-8.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.02%	29.74%	-12.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.59%	32.70%	-14.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.59%	32.70%	-14.11%

FDIF vs. NUKZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDIF has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than NUKZ's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDIF vs. NUKZ - Dividend Comparison

FDIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.30%, less than NUKZ's 0.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FDIF Fidelity Disruptors ETF	0.30%	0.36%	0.35%	0.21%
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	0.80%	0.91%	0.09%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDIF and NUKZ in my portfolio?

FDIF and NUKZ have a correlation of 0.68, 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 NUKZ?

NUKZ has higher volatility (10.30%) compared to FDIF (4.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDIF dropped -22.63% vs NUKZ's -33.03%.

Which ETF is better, FDIF or NUKZ?

On 1-year performance, NUKZ leads with 41.42% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, FDIF or NUKZ?

Over the 1-year period, NUKZ has performed better with a 41.42% return vs 22.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDIF or NUKZ?

FDIF is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for NUKZ.

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

NUKZ has the higher dividend yield at 0.80%, compared with 0.30% for FDIF.

What is the main difference between FDIF and NUKZ?

FDIF is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while NUKZ is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Exchange Traded Concepts. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FDIF and 0.85% for NUKZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NUKZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.40 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.