FFLC vs. PLDR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FFLC (Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF) and PLDR (Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FFLC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while PLDR is a Sustainable fund actively managed by Power Corporation of Canada. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FFLC returned 16.06%/yr vs 8.99%/yr for PLDR. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FFLC charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for PLDR.

Performance

FFLC vs. PLDR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) and Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF (PLDR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFLC achieves a 9.17% return, which is significantly higher than PLDR's 1.69% return.

FFLC

• 1D: -1.70%
• 1M: -0.03%
• YTD: 9.17%
• 6M: 8.34%
• 1Y: 24.45%
• 3Y*: 22.21%
• 5Y*: 16.06%
• 10Y*: —

PLDR

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: -1.54%
• YTD: 1.69%
• 6M: 0.88%
• 1Y: 15.57%
• 3Y*: 17.17%
• 5Y*: 8.99%
• 10Y*: —

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

FFLC vs. PLDR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FFLC Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF	9.17%	17.67%	27.89%	25.07%	-0.04%	3.13%
PLDR Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF	1.69%	12.03%	23.47%	27.47%	-22.52%	11.54%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLC and PLDR is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2021	0.86

The correlation between FFLC and PLDR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

FFLC vs. PLDR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFLC	PLDR
Technology	32.5%	38.3%
Financial Services	11.6%	9.9%
Industrials	11.5%	8.4%
Communication Services	10.9%	11.1%
Consumer Cyclical	9.7%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.1%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	5.3%
Energy	4.4%	3.1%
Utilities	2.6%	3.4%
Basic Materials	1.7%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.1%	0.6%

Return for Risk

FFLC vs. PLDR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLC

FFLC Risk / Return Rank: 56
FFLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
FFLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
FFLC Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FFLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
FFLC Martin Ratio Rank: 63

PLDR

PLDR Risk / Return Rank: 34
PLDR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
PLDR Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
PLDR Omega Ratio Rank: 36
PLDR Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
PLDR Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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. PLDR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) and Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF (PLDR). 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.

	FFLC	PLDR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.81	1.25	+0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.49	1.79	+0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.23	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.46	1.23	+1.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.96	4.62	+6.34

FFLC vs. PLDR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.81, which is higher than the PLDR Sharpe Ratio of 1.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLC and PLDR, 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

FFLC vs. PLDR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLC drawdown since its inception was -19.72%, smaller than the maximum PLDR drawdown of -29.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLC and PLDR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLC	PLDR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.72%	-29.58%	+9.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.98%	-12.81%	+2.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.72%	-23.00%	+3.28%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.72%	-29.58%	+9.86%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.37%	-3.21%	+0.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.98%	-8.57%	+5.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.24%	3.40%	-1.16%

Volatility

FFLC vs. PLDR - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) has a higher volatility of 5.32% compared to Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF (PLDR) at 3.62%. This indicates that FFLC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PLDR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFLC	PLDR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.32%	3.62%	+1.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.71%	9.83%	+0.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.56%	12.57%	+0.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.00%	17.10%	-0.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.69%	17.04%	+0.65%

FFLC vs. PLDR - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLC has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is lower than PLDR's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLC vs. PLDR - Dividend Comparison

FFLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, more than PLDR's 0.37% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FFLC Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF	1.01%	1.10%	0.82%	0.57%	1.67%	1.68%	0.89%
PLDR Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF	0.37%	0.37%	0.38%	0.56%	0.63%	0.39%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFLC and PLDR in my portfolio?

FFLC and PLDR have a correlation of 0.87, 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 PLDR?

FFLC has higher volatility (5.32%) compared to PLDR (3.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLC dropped -19.72% vs PLDR's -29.58%.

Which ETF is better, FFLC or PLDR?

On 5-year performance, FFLC leads with 16.06% vs 8.99% for PLDR. On fees, FFLC is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, PLDR has been the lower-risk option at 3.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFLC or PLDR?

Over the 5-year period, FFLC has performed better with a 16.06% return vs 8.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFLC or PLDR?

FFLC is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for PLDR.

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

FFLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.01%, compared with 0.37% for PLDR.

What is the main difference between FFLC and PLDR?

FFLC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while PLDR is Sustainable. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Power Corporation of Canada. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for FFLC and 0.59% for PLDR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.81 vs 1.25), 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.