FDIS vs. RFG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FDIS (Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF) and RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FDIS is a Consumer Discretionary Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Consumer Discretionary Index, while RFG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FDIS returned 13.68%/yr vs 10.49%/yr for RFG. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FDIS charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RFG.

Performance

FDIS vs. RFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF (FDIS) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDIS achieves a -0.65% return, which is significantly lower than RFG's 22.14% return. Over the past 10 years, FDIS has outperformed RFG with an annualized return of 13.68%, while RFG has yielded a comparatively lower 10.49% annualized return.

FDIS

• 1D: -0.72%
• 1M: -0.07%
• YTD: -0.65%
• 6M: -0.87%
• 1Y: 9.82%
• 3Y*: 15.08%
• 5Y*: 6.19%
• 10Y*: 13.68%

RFG

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: 7.30%
• YTD: 22.14%
• 6M: 21.89%
• 1Y: 32.96%
• 3Y*: 20.57%
• 5Y*: 8.63%
• 10Y*: 10.49%

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

FDIS vs. RFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FDIS Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF	-0.65%	5.67%	24.43%	40.48%	-35.23%	24.25%	49.50%	27.44%	-0.88%	22.96%
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	22.14%	8.80%	17.80%	16.42%	-21.70%	13.81%	32.86%	17.09%	-13.98%	20.46%

Correlation

The correlation between FDIS and RFG is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.70
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2013	0.80

The correlation between FDIS and RFG shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (1 year) to 0.80 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FDIS vs. RFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDIS	RFG
Consumer Cyclical	96.9%	7.6%
Consumer Defensive	1.0%	3.1%
Technology	0.9%	21.2%
Industrials	0.8%	31.3%
Communication Services	0.2%	0.6%
Healthcare	0.1%	19.4%
Financial Services	0.1%	3.7%
Real Estate	0.1%	2.2%
Basic Materials	-	3.3%
Energy	-	5.4%
Utilities	-	2.4%

Return for Risk

FDIS vs. RFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDIS

FDIS Risk / Return Rank: 17
FDIS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
FDIS Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
FDIS Omega Ratio Rank: 16
FDIS Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
FDIS Martin Ratio Rank: 18

RFG

RFG Risk / Return Rank: 57
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 49
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

FDIS vs. RFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF (FDIS) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). 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.

	FDIS	RFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.54	1.79	-1.25
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.88	2.55	-1.68
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.31	-0.21
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.64	3.18	-2.55
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.00	12.89	-10.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FDIS vs. RFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDIS Sharpe Ratio is 0.54, which is lower than the RFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDIS and RFG, 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

	FDIS	RFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.54	1.79	-1.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.26	0.38	-0.12
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.62	0.46	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	0.43	+0.18

Drawdowns

FDIS vs. RFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDIS drawdown since its inception was -39.16%, smaller than the maximum RFG drawdown of -51.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDIS and RFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDIS	RFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.16%	-51.93%	+12.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.50%	-10.41%	-5.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.43%	-26.71%	-0.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.16%	-35.16%	-4.00%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.16%	-42.92%	+3.76%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.22%	0.00%	-5.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.50%	-8.97%	+1.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.93%	2.56%	+2.37%

Volatility

FDIS vs. RFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF (FDIS) is 5.20%, while Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a volatility of 6.50%. This indicates that FDIS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDIS	RFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.20%	6.50%	-1.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.06%	14.72%	-1.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.37%	18.53%	-0.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.87%	22.81%	+1.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.29%	23.05%	-0.76%

FDIS vs. RFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDIS has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than RFG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDIS vs. RFG - Dividend Comparison

FDIS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%, more than RFG's 0.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FDIS Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF	0.73%	0.75%	0.69%	0.78%	1.00%	0.58%	0.59%	1.14%	1.29%	1.00%	1.62%	1.25%
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	0.31%	0.43%	0.38%	0.99%	0.78%	0.05%	0.27%	0.64%	0.76%	0.66%	0.35%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDIS and RFG in my portfolio?

FDIS and RFG have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDIS or RFG?

RFG has higher volatility (6.50%) compared to FDIS (5.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDIS dropped -39.16% vs RFG's -51.93%.

Which ETF is better, FDIS or RFG?

On 10-year performance, FDIS leads with 13.68% vs 10.49% for RFG. On fees, FDIS is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FDIS has been the lower-risk option at 5.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDIS or RFG?

Over the 10-year period, FDIS has performed better with a 13.68% return vs 10.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDIS or RFG?

FDIS is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDIS or RFG?

FDIS has the higher dividend yield at 0.73%, compared with 0.31% for RFG.

What is the main difference between FDIS and RFG?

FDIS is categorized as Consumer Discretionary Equities, while RFG is Small Cap Growth Equities. FDIS tracks MSCI USA IMI Consumer Discretionary Index, while RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FDIS and 0.35% for RFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 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.