PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FFLG vs. FFSM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FFLG vs. FFSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) and Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFLG achieves a 16.49% return, which is significantly lower than FFSM's 18.92% return.


FFLG

1D
-0.90%
1M
7.34%
YTD
16.49%
6M
16.21%
1Y
39.38%
3Y*
28.99%
5Y*
12.59%
10Y*

FFSM

1D
0.16%
1M
3.08%
YTD
18.92%
6M
18.95%
1Y
38.60%
3Y*
21.43%
5Y*
10.37%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FFLG vs. FFSM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
FFLG
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF
16.49%19.61%32.29%49.71%-37.86%1.72%
FFSM
Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF
18.92%14.89%14.38%17.30%-16.35%19.77%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLG and FFSM is 0.64, 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

0.64

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

0.67

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

0.75

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021

0.74

The correlation between FFLG and FFSM shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (1 year) to 0.75 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FFLG vs. FFSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FFLG
FFSM

Technology

51.7%
14.0%

Communication Services

15.1%

-

Consumer Cyclical

11.3%
12.2%

Healthcare

6.4%
9.1%

Industrials

5.9%
29.5%

Financial Services

3.3%
22.7%

Utilities

1.4%
1.8%

Basic Materials

1.4%
6.2%

Real Estate

0.7%
0.0%

Consumer Defensive

0.6%
2.3%

Energy

0.3%
2.2%

Technology

FFLG
51.7%
FFSM
14.0%

Communication Services

FFLG
15.1%
FFSM

-

Consumer Cyclical

FFLG
11.3%
FFSM
12.2%

Healthcare

FFLG
6.4%
FFSM
9.1%

Industrials

FFLG
5.9%
FFSM
29.5%

Financial Services

FFLG
3.3%
FFSM
22.7%

Utilities

FFLG
1.4%
FFSM
1.8%

Basic Materials

FFLG
1.4%
FFSM
6.2%

Real Estate

FFLG
0.7%
FFSM
0.0%

Consumer Defensive

FFLG
0.6%
FFSM
2.3%

Energy

FFLG
0.3%
FFSM
2.2%

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

FFLG vs. FFSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLG
FFLG Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
FFLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FFLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
FFLG Omega Ratio Rank: 5959
Omega Ratio Rank
FFLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
FFLG Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
Martin Ratio Rank

FFSM
FFSM Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
FFSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FFSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
FFSM Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
FFSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
FFSM Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

FFLG vs. FFSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) and Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM). 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.


FFLGFFSMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

0.00

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.38

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.78

3.74

-0.96

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.87

15.16

-4.29

FFLG vs. FFSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.16, which is comparable to the FFSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLG and FFSM, 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


FFLGFFSMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.16

2.16

0.00

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.50

0.50

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.44

0.59

-0.15

Drawdowns

FFLG vs. FFSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLG drawdown since its inception was -44.52%, which is greater than FFSM's maximum drawdown of -26.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLG and FFSM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FFLGFFSMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.52%

-26.65%

-17.87%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.23%

-10.37%

-3.86%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.72%

-24.78%

-1.94%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-44.52%

-26.65%

-17.87%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.90%

-0.57%

-0.33%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.27%

-7.86%

-6.41%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.63%

2.55%

+1.08%

Volatility

FFLG vs. FFSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) is 4.60%, while Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) has a volatility of 5.70%. This indicates that FFLG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FFLGFFSMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.60%

5.70%

-1.10%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.11%

13.98%

+0.13%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.30%

17.96%

+0.34%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

25.34%

20.66%

+4.68%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.38%

20.57%

+4.81%

FFLG vs. FFSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLG has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is lower than FFSM's 0.43% expense ratio.


Dividends

FFLG vs. FFSM - Dividend Comparison

FFLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than FFSM's 0.46% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021
FFLG
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF
0.13%0.14%0.09%0.00%1.50%0.55%
FFSM
Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF
0.46%0.56%0.62%0.56%0.58%0.37%

Frequently Asked Questions


FFLG and FFSM have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FFSM has higher volatility (5.70%) compared to FFLG (4.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLG dropped -44.52% vs FFSM's -26.65%.

On 5-year performance, FFLG leads with 12.59% vs 10.37% for FFSM. On fees, FFLG is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, FFLG has been the lower-risk option at 4.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FFLG has performed better with a 12.59% return vs 10.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FFLG is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.43% for FFSM.

FFSM has the higher dividend yield at 0.46%, compared with 0.13% for FFLG.

FFLG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while FFSM is Mid Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for FFLG and 0.43% for FFSM.

FFLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 vs 2.16), 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 FFLG and FFSM

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