FFGX vs. DBAW
FFGX (Fidelity Fundamental Global ex-U.S. ETF) and DBAW (Xtrackers MSCI All World ex US Hedged Equity ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. FFGX is actively managed, while DBAW is passively managed. Over the past year, FFGX returned 25.28% vs 36.60% for DBAW. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FFGX charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.41%/yr for DBAW.
Performance
FFGX vs. DBAW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FFGX achieves a 14.06% return, which is significantly lower than DBAW's 16.12% return.
FFGX
- 1D
- -0.92%
- 1M
- 5.58%
- YTD
- 14.06%
- 6M
- 16.61%
- 1Y
- 25.28%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
DBAW
- 1D
- -0.51%
- 1M
- 6.28%
- YTD
- 16.12%
- 6M
- 18.39%
- 1Y
- 36.60%
- 3Y*
- 21.15%
- 5Y*
- 11.32%
- 10Y*
- 11.44%
FFGX vs. DBAW - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
FFGX Fidelity Fundamental Global ex-U.S. ETF | 14.06% | 27.85% | -2.87% |
DBAW Xtrackers MSCI All World ex US Hedged Equity ETF | 16.12% | 26.47% | 0.23% |
Correlation
The correlation between FFGX and DBAW is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 22, 2024 | 0.89 |
The correlation between FFGX and DBAW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
FFGX vs. DBAW — Risk / Return Rank
FFGX
DBAW
FFGX vs. DBAW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Global ex-U.S. ETF (FFGX) and Xtrackers MSCI All World ex US Hedged Equity ETF (DBAW). 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.
| FFGX | DBAW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.43 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.83 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.55 | -0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.97 | 4.09 | -2.11 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.79 | 16.97 | -9.17 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FFGX | DBAW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.43 | 2.86 | -1.43 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.83 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.75 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.36 | 0.63 | +0.73 |
Drawdowns
FFGX vs. DBAW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FFGX drawdown since its inception was -14.79%, smaller than the maximum DBAW drawdown of -31.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFGX and DBAW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FFGX | DBAW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.79% | -31.44% | +16.65% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.86% | -9.00% | -3.86% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -14.11% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -17.87% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -31.44% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.92% | -0.51% | -0.41% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.11% | -5.00% | +2.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.25% | 2.16% | +1.09% |
Volatility
FFGX vs. DBAW - Volatility Comparison
Fidelity Fundamental Global ex-U.S. ETF (FFGX) has a higher volatility of 6.77% compared to Xtrackers MSCI All World ex US Hedged Equity ETF (DBAW) at 4.71%. This indicates that FFGX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DBAW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FFGX | DBAW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.77% | 4.71% | +2.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.62% | 11.00% | +4.62% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.76% | 12.88% | +4.88% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.06% | 13.74% | +5.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.06% | 15.28% | +3.78% |
FFGX vs. DBAW - Expense Ratio Comparison
FFGX has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than DBAW's 0.41% expense ratio.
Dividends
FFGX vs. DBAW - Dividend Comparison
FFGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.40%, less than DBAW's 3.29% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DBAW Xtrackers MSCI All World ex US Hedged Equity ETF | 3.29% | 3.83% | 1.70% | 3.45% | 8.81% | 2.05% | 2.08% | 2.91% | 2.93% | 2.41% | 1.99% | 5.74% |
FFGX Fidelity Fundamental Global ex-U.S. ETF | 1.40% | 1.62% | 0.40% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.91, FFGX and DBAW move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
FFGX has higher volatility (6.77%) compared to DBAW (4.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFGX dropped -14.79% vs DBAW's -31.44%.
On 1-year performance, DBAW leads with 36.60% vs 25.28% for FFGX. On fees, DBAW is cheaper at 0.41% per year. On volatility, DBAW has been the lower-risk option at 4.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, DBAW has performed better with a 36.60% return vs 25.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
DBAW is cheaper with a 0.41% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for FFGX.
DBAW has the higher dividend yield at 3.29%, compared with 1.40% for FFGX.
They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Deutsche Bank. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for FFGX and 0.41% for DBAW.
DBAW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.86 vs 1.43), 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.
Find the right allocation for FFGX and DBAW
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