FFLC vs. NRSH

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FFLC (Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF) and NRSH (Aztlan North America Nearshoring Stock Selection ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. FFLC is actively managed, while NRSH is passively managed. Over the past year, FFLC returned 26.96% vs 58.80% for NRSH. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FFLC charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for NRSH.

Performance

FFLC vs. NRSH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) and Aztlan North America Nearshoring Stock Selection ETF (NRSH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFLC achieves a 10.26% return, which is significantly lower than NRSH's 47.92% return.

FFLC

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

NRSH

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: 13.93%
• YTD: 47.92%
• 6M: 46.01%
• 1Y: 58.80%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FFLC vs. NRSH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FFLC Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF	10.26%	17.67%	27.89%	4.38%
NRSH Aztlan North America Nearshoring Stock Selection ETF	47.92%	12.95%	-6.17%	8.65%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLC and NRSH is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2023	0.63

The correlation between FFLC and NRSH shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (all time) to 0.73 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FFLC vs. NRSH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFLC	NRSH
Technology	32.3%	35.5%
Communication Services	11.8%	-
Financial Services	11.3%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	-
Industrials	10.8%	58.7%
Healthcare	8.1%	-
Energy	4.8%	2.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	-
Utilities	2.6%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	-
Real Estate	1.1%	5.8%

Return for Risk

FFLC vs. NRSH — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLC

FFLC Risk / Return Rank: 61
FFLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
FFLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
FFLC Omega Ratio Rank: 61
FFLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
FFLC Martin Ratio Rank: 66

NRSH

NRSH Risk / Return Rank: 76
NRSH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
NRSH Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
NRSH Omega Ratio Rank: 66
NRSH Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
NRSH Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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. NRSH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) and Aztlan North America Nearshoring Stock Selection ETF (NRSH). 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.

	FFLC	NRSH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	2.42	-0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.90	3.11	-0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.40	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.71	5.40	-2.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.30	16.86	-4.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FFLC vs. NRSH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLC Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is comparable to the NRSH Sharpe Ratio of 2.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLC and NRSH, 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

	FFLC	NRSH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.12	2.42	-0.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.17	1.11	+0.06

Drawdowns

FFLC vs. NRSH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLC drawdown since its inception was -19.72%, smaller than the maximum NRSH drawdown of -24.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLC and NRSH.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLC	NRSH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.72%	-24.01%	+4.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.98%	-10.94%	+0.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.72%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.72%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.68%	0.00%	-0.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.99%	-5.62%	+2.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.20%	3.50%	-1.30%

Volatility

FFLC vs. NRSH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) is 3.15%, while Aztlan North America Nearshoring Stock Selection ETF (NRSH) has a volatility of 9.21%. This indicates that FFLC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NRSH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFLC	NRSH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.15%	9.21%	-6.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.73%	20.27%	-10.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.80%	24.44%	-11.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.92%	21.54%	-4.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.65%	21.54%	-3.89%

FFLC vs. NRSH - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLC has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is lower than NRSH's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLC vs. NRSH - Dividend Comparison

FFLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.00%, more than NRSH's 0.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FFLC Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF	1.00%	1.10%	0.82%	0.57%	1.67%	1.68%	0.89%
NRSH Aztlan North America Nearshoring Stock Selection ETF	0.28%	0.42%	0.90%	0.17%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFLC and NRSH in my portfolio?

FFLC and NRSH have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FFLC or NRSH?

NRSH has higher volatility (9.21%) compared to FFLC (3.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLC dropped -19.72% vs NRSH's -24.01%.

Which ETF is better, FFLC or NRSH?

On 1-year performance, NRSH leads with 58.80% vs 26.96% for FFLC. On fees, FFLC is cheaper at 0.38% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, FFLC or NRSH?

Over the 1-year period, NRSH has performed better with a 58.80% return vs 26.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFLC or NRSH?

FFLC is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for NRSH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FFLC or NRSH?

FFLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.00%, compared with 0.28% for NRSH.

What is the main difference between FFLC and NRSH?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Aztlan. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for FFLC and 0.75% for NRSH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NRSH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.42 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.