FFLG vs. FNCMX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FFLG (Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF) and FNCMX (Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds from Fidelity. FFLG is actively managed, while FNCMX is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FFLG returned 12.59%/yr vs 15.70%/yr for FNCMX. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FFLG charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for FNCMX.

Performance

FFLG vs. FNCMX - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FFLG having a 16.49% return and FNCMX slightly higher at 16.82%.

FFLG

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

FNCMX

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 8.17%
• YTD: 16.82%
• 6M: 15.82%
• 1Y: 40.51%
• 3Y*: 27.91%
• 5Y*: 15.70%
• 10Y*: 19.45%

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

FFLG vs. FNCMX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FFLG Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF	16.49%	19.61%	32.29%	49.71%	-37.86%	1.72%
FNCMX Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund	16.82%	21.11%	29.48%	45.13%	-32.40%	14.33%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLG and FNCMX is 0.95 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021	0.96

The correlation between FFLG and FNCMX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FFLG vs. FNCMX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLG

FFLG Risk / Return Rank: 60
FFLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
FFLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
FFLG Omega Ratio Rank: 59
FFLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
FFLG Martin Ratio Rank: 60

FNCMX

FNCMX Risk / Return Rank: 68
FNCMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FNCMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
FNCMX Omega Ratio Rank: 63
FNCMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
FNCMX Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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. FNCMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) and Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund (FNCMX). 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.

	FFLG	FNCMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.16	2.58	-0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.85	3.36	-0.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.44	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.78	3.22	-0.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.87	12.65	-1.78
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FFLG vs. FNCMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.16, which is comparable to the FNCMX Sharpe Ratio of 2.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLG and FNCMX, 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

	FFLG	FNCMX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.16	2.58	-0.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50	0.70	-0.20
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.89	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.44	0.58	-0.15

Drawdowns

FFLG vs. FNCMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLG drawdown since its inception was -44.52%, smaller than the maximum FNCMX drawdown of -55.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLG and FNCMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLG	FNCMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.52%	-55.08%	+10.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.23%	-13.01%	-1.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.72%	-24.20%	-2.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.52%	-35.64%	-8.88%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.90%	0.00%	-0.90%
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%	3.30%	+0.33%

Volatility

FFLG vs. FNCMX - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) has a higher volatility of 4.60% compared to Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund (FNCMX) at 4.12%. This indicates that FFLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNCMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFLG	FNCMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.60%	4.12%	+0.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.11%	12.10%	+2.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.30%	16.23%	+2.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.34%	22.46%	+2.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.38%	22.05%	+3.33%

FFLG vs. FNCMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLG has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is higher than FNCMX's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLG vs. FNCMX - Dividend Comparison

FFLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than FNCMX's 0.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FFLG Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF	0.13%	0.14%	0.09%	0.00%	1.50%	0.55%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FNCMX Fidelity NASDAQ Composite Index Fund	0.44%	0.51%	0.61%	0.67%	0.88%	0.47%	0.67%	4.41%	1.93%	0.03%	1.01%	1.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFLG and FNCMX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, FFLG and FNCMX 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.

Which is riskier, FFLG or FNCMX?

FFLG has higher volatility (4.60%) compared to FNCMX (4.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLG dropped -44.52% vs FNCMX's -55.08%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNCMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.58 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.