FDLS vs. BLES

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FDLS (Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF) and BLES (Inspire Global Hope ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FDLS is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the WI Fidelis Multi-Cap, Multi-Factor Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while BLES is a Global Equities fund tracking the Inspire Global Hope Large Cap Equal Weight Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FDLS returned 19.80%/yr vs 15.36%/yr for BLES. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FDLS charges 0.76%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for BLES.

Performance

FDLS vs. BLES - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF (FDLS) and Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDLS achieves a 16.11% return, which is significantly higher than BLES's 9.82% return.

FDLS

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: 2.31%
• YTD: 16.11%
• 6M: 14.16%
• 1Y: 34.59%
• 3Y*: 19.80%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BLES

• 1D: -1.34%
• 1M: -0.63%
• YTD: 9.82%
• 6M: 9.21%
• 1Y: 20.14%
• 3Y*: 15.36%
• 5Y*: 7.19%
• 10Y*: —

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

FDLS vs. BLES - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FDLS Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF	16.11%	22.47%	7.41%	20.70%	-1.68%
BLES Inspire Global Hope ETF	9.82%	19.25%	5.59%	16.47%	-1.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FDLS and BLES is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 24, 2022	0.84

The correlation between FDLS and BLES has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDLS vs. BLES - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDLS	BLES
Technology	23.9%	17.6%
Industrials	17.6%	20.3%
Financial Services	13.9%	13.0%
Healthcare	11.2%	7.0%
Energy	6.7%	6.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	4.4%
Consumer Cyclical	3.7%	6.3%
Basic Materials	2.4%	9.8%
Real Estate	2.1%	7.6%
Utilities	1.7%	7.0%
Communication Services	1.1%	1.0%

Return for Risk

FDLS vs. BLES — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDLS

FDLS Risk / Return Rank: 71
FDLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
FDLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
FDLS Omega Ratio Rank: 63
FDLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
FDLS Martin Ratio Rank: 79

BLES

BLES Risk / Return Rank: 50
BLES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
BLES Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
BLES Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BLES Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
BLES Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

FDLS vs. BLES - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF (FDLS) and Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES). 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.

	FDLS	BLES	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	1.57	+0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.87	2.22	+0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.28	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.64	2.44	+1.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.37	9.14	+5.22

FDLS vs. BLES - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDLS Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is higher than the BLES Sharpe Ratio of 1.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDLS and BLES, 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

FDLS vs. BLES - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDLS drawdown since its inception was -23.32%, smaller than the maximum BLES drawdown of -40.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDLS and BLES.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDLS	BLES	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.32%	-40.35%	+17.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.55%	-8.29%	-1.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.32%	-15.46%	-7.86%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.61%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.04%	-2.45%	+1.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.85%	-6.02%	+2.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.41%	2.21%	+0.20%

Volatility

FDLS vs. BLES - Volatility Comparison

Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF (FDLS) has a higher volatility of 5.36% compared to Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES) at 4.39%. This indicates that FDLS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BLES based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDLS	BLES	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.36%	4.39%	+0.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.85%	10.21%	+2.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.06%	12.92%	+4.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.07%	16.50%	+2.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.07%	18.93%	+0.14%

FDLS vs. BLES - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDLS has a 0.76% expense ratio, which is higher than BLES's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDLS vs. BLES - Dividend Comparison

FDLS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%, less than BLES's 1.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BLES Inspire Global Hope ETF	1.81%	1.97%	1.90%	1.80%	1.64%	9.28%	1.61%	2.16%	1.73%	2.01%
FDLS Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF	0.85%	0.86%	7.26%	0.97%	0.31%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDLS and BLES in my portfolio?

FDLS and BLES have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDLS or BLES?

FDLS has higher volatility (5.36%) compared to BLES (4.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDLS dropped -23.32% vs BLES's -40.35%.

Which ETF is better, FDLS or BLES?

On 3-year performance, FDLS leads with 19.80% vs 15.36% for BLES. On fees, BLES is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, BLES has been the lower-risk option at 4.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDLS or BLES?

Over the 3-year period, FDLS has performed better with a 19.80% return vs 15.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDLS or BLES?

BLES is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.76% for FDLS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDLS or BLES?

BLES has the higher dividend yield at 1.81%, compared with 0.85% for FDLS.

What is the main difference between FDLS and BLES?

FDLS is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while BLES is Global Equities. FDLS tracks WI Fidelis Multi-Cap, Multi-Factor Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while BLES tracks Inspire Global Hope Large Cap Equal Weight Index. Their fees differ too: 0.76% for FDLS and 0.58% for BLES.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDLS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.57), 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.