PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FFLC vs. MTUM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FFLC vs. MTUM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFLC achieves a 10.26% return, which is significantly lower than MTUM's 31.75% return.


FFLC

1D
-0.68%
1M
3.15%
YTD
10.26%
6M
11.18%
1Y
26.96%
3Y*
23.20%
5Y*
15.85%
10Y*

MTUM

1D
1.06%
1M
15.90%
YTD
31.75%
6M
32.38%
1Y
41.76%
3Y*
34.75%
5Y*
15.21%
10Y*
17.31%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FFLC vs. MTUM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
FFLC
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF
10.26%17.67%27.89%25.07%-0.04%24.53%18.76%
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
31.75%22.15%32.89%9.15%-18.27%13.36%29.72%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLC and MTUM is 0.86, 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

0.86

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.89

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.86

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2020

0.76

The correlation between FFLC and MTUM shifts across timeframes, from 0.76 (all time) to 0.89 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FFLC vs. MTUM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FFLC
MTUM

Technology

32.3%
44.4%

Communication Services

11.8%
7.4%

Financial Services

11.3%
10.4%

Consumer Cyclical

10.9%
3.6%

Industrials

10.8%
15.6%

Healthcare

8.1%
6.9%

Energy

4.8%
3.5%

Consumer Defensive

4.1%
3.3%

Utilities

2.6%
1.6%

Basic Materials

1.8%
1.7%

Real Estate

1.1%
1.8%

Technology

FFLC
32.3%
MTUM
44.4%

Communication Services

FFLC
11.8%
MTUM
7.4%

Financial Services

FFLC
11.3%
MTUM
10.4%

Consumer Cyclical

FFLC
10.9%
MTUM
3.6%

Industrials

FFLC
10.8%
MTUM
15.6%

Healthcare

FFLC
8.1%
MTUM
6.9%

Energy

FFLC
4.8%
MTUM
3.5%

Consumer Defensive

FFLC
4.1%
MTUM
3.3%

Utilities

FFLC
2.6%
MTUM
1.6%

Basic Materials

FFLC
1.8%
MTUM
1.7%

Real Estate

FFLC
1.1%
MTUM
1.8%

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

FFLC vs. MTUM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLC
FFLC Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
FFLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FFLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 6161
Sortino Ratio Rank
FFLC Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
FFLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
FFLC Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank

MTUM
MTUM Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
MTUM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MTUM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
MTUM Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
MTUM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
MTUM Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FFLC vs. MTUM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) and iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM). 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.


FFLCMTUMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.09

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.07

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.39

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.71

3.64

-0.92

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.30

14.50

-2.20

FFLC vs. MTUM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLC Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is comparable to the MTUM Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLC and MTUM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FFLCMTUMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.12

2.20

-0.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.94

0.74

+0.20

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.17

0.85

+0.32

Drawdowns

FFLC vs. MTUM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLC drawdown since its inception was -19.72%, smaller than the maximum MTUM drawdown of -34.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLC and MTUM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FFLCMTUMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-19.72%

-34.08%

+14.36%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.98%

-11.54%

+1.56%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.72%

-20.99%

+1.27%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.72%

-32.28%

+12.56%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.08%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.68%

0.00%

-0.68%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.99%

-6.21%

+3.22%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.20%

2.89%

-0.69%

Volatility

FFLC vs. MTUM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) is 3.15%, while iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF (MTUM) has a volatility of 7.68%. This indicates that FFLC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MTUM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FFLCMTUMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.15%

7.68%

-4.53%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.73%

16.46%

-6.73%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.80%

19.04%

-6.24%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.92%

20.60%

-3.68%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.65%

21.03%

-3.38%

FFLC vs. MTUM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLC has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is higher than MTUM's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

FFLC vs. MTUM - Dividend Comparison

FFLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.00%, more than MTUM's 0.60% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FFLC
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF
1.00%1.10%0.82%0.57%1.67%1.68%0.89%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
MTUM
iShares MSCI USA Momentum Factor ETF
0.60%0.91%0.75%1.35%1.80%0.55%0.83%1.48%1.27%1.02%1.43%1.12%

Frequently Asked Questions


FFLC and MTUM have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MTUM has higher volatility (7.68%) compared to FFLC (3.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLC dropped -19.72% vs MTUM's -34.08%.

On 5-year performance, FFLC leads with 15.85% vs 15.21% for MTUM. On fees, MTUM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FFLC has been the lower-risk option at 3.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FFLC has performed better with a 15.85% return vs 15.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

MTUM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for FFLC.

FFLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.00%, compared with 0.60% for MTUM.

FFLC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while MTUM is Momentum. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for FFLC and 0.15% for MTUM.

MTUM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 2.12), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FFLC and MTUM

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