FFSM vs. BMVP

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

FFSM (Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF) and BMVP (Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. FFSM is actively managed, while BMVP is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FFSM returned 11.00%/yr vs 7.23%/yr for BMVP. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FFSM charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for BMVP.

Performance

FFSM vs. BMVP - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFSM achieves a 19.47% return, which is significantly higher than BMVP's 8.19% return.

FFSM

• 1D: -0.84%
• 1M: -1.40%
• 6M: 13.58%
• YTD: 19.47%
• 1Y: 32.97%
• 3Y*: 18.99%
• 5Y*: 11.00%
• 10Y*: —

BMVP

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 0.59%
• 6M: 4.86%
• YTD: 8.19%
• 1Y: 11.01%
• 3Y*: 12.43%
• 5Y*: 7.23%
• 10Y*: 9.34%

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

FFSM vs. BMVP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	19.47%	14.89%	14.38%	17.30%	-16.35%	20.44%
BMVP Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF	8.19%	6.15%	17.46%	19.03%	-16.01%	10.23%

Correlation

The correlation between FFSM and BMVP is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2021	0.83

Over the past year, the correlation between FFSM and BMVP has dropped to 0.55 - well below their long-term average of 0.83, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FFSM vs. BMVP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFSM	BMVP
Industrials	25.7%	16.6%
Technology	18.5%	17.2%
Financial Services	13.9%	16.3%
Healthcare	9.8%	9.7%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	10.6%
Consumer Defensive	5.5%	5.0%
Energy	5.1%	5.1%
Basic Materials	4.5%	1.5%
Real Estate	4.5%	5.4%
Utilities	2.3%	5.1%
Communication Services	0.6%	7.5%

Return for Risk

FFSM vs. BMVP — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFSM

FFSM Risk / Return Rank: 72
FFSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
FFSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
FFSM Omega Ratio Rank: 63
FFSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
FFSM Martin Ratio Rank: 81

BMVP

BMVP Risk / Return Rank: 40
BMVP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
BMVP Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
BMVP Omega Ratio Rank: 36
BMVP Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
BMVP Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

FFSM vs. BMVP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) and Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP). 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.

	FFSM	BMVP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.76	1.14	+0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.52	1.69	+0.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.20	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.19	1.71	+1.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.54	5.11	+7.43

FFSM vs. BMVP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFSM Sharpe Ratio is 1.76, which is higher than the BMVP Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFSM and BMVP, 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

FFSM vs. BMVP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFSM drawdown since its inception was -26.65%, smaller than the maximum BMVP drawdown of -78.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFSM and BMVP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFSM	BMVP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.65%	-78.13%	+51.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.37%	-6.45%	-3.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.78%	-15.12%	-9.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.65%	-26.58%	-0.07%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.27%	-0.21%	-4.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.73%	-36.05%	+28.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.64%	2.16%	+0.48%

Volatility

FFSM vs. BMVP - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) has a higher volatility of 6.19% compared to Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF (BMVP) at 2.86%. This indicates that FFSM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BMVP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFSM	BMVP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.19%	2.86%	+3.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.91%	7.18%	+7.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.89%	9.74%	+9.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.78%	15.98%	+4.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.59%	18.72%	+1.87%

FFSM vs. BMVP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFSM has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is higher than BMVP's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFSM vs. BMVP - Dividend Comparison

FFSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.44%, less than BMVP's 1.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BMVP Invesco Bloomberg MVP Multi-factor ETF	1.75%	1.77%	1.58%	1.67%	1.51%	0.56%	1.09%	0.95%	1.44%	1.75%	1.35%	1.02%
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.44%	0.56%	0.62%	0.56%	0.58%	0.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFSM and BMVP in my portfolio?

FFSM and BMVP have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FFSM or BMVP?

FFSM has higher volatility (6.19%) compared to BMVP (2.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFSM dropped -26.65% vs BMVP's -78.13%.

Which ETF is better, FFSM or BMVP?

On 5-year performance, FFSM leads with 11.00% vs 7.23% for BMVP. On fees, BMVP is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, BMVP has been the lower-risk option at 2.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFSM or BMVP?

Over the 5-year period, FFSM has performed better with a 11.00% return vs 7.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFSM or BMVP?

BMVP is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.43% for FFSM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FFSM or BMVP?

BMVP has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 0.44% for FFSM.

What is the main difference between FFSM and BMVP?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for FFSM and 0.29% for BMVP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 vs 1.14), 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.