FFSM vs. XMHQ

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FFSM (Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF) and XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. FFSM is actively managed, while XMHQ is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FFSM returned 10.42%/yr vs 9.42%/yr for XMHQ. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FFSM charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for XMHQ.

Performance

FFSM vs. XMHQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFSM achieves a 18.72% return, which is significantly higher than XMHQ's 8.95% return.

FFSM

• 1D: 1.65%
• 1M: 2.13%
• YTD: 18.72%
• 6M: 20.25%
• 1Y: 40.12%
• 3Y*: 21.36%
• 5Y*: 10.42%
• 10Y*: —

XMHQ

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: 3.20%
• YTD: 8.95%
• 6M: 9.84%
• 1Y: 15.30%
• 3Y*: 16.36%
• 5Y*: 9.42%
• 10Y*: 12.78%

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

FFSM vs. XMHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	18.72%	14.89%	14.38%	17.30%	-16.35%	19.77%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	8.95%	4.71%	16.79%	29.51%	-12.42%	13.32%

Correlation

The correlation between FFSM and XMHQ 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	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021	0.94

The correlation between FFSM and XMHQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

FFSM vs. XMHQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFSM	XMHQ
Industrials	29.5%	25.8%
Financial Services	22.7%	15.1%
Technology	14.0%	12.1%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	9.7%
Healthcare	9.1%	19.7%
Basic Materials	6.2%	4.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	3.9%
Energy	2.2%	6.7%
Utilities	1.8%	2.2%
Real Estate	0.0%	-
Communication Services	-	2.7%

Return for Risk

FFSM vs. XMHQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFSM

FFSM Risk / Return Rank: 70
FFSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
FFSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
FFSM Omega Ratio Rank: 64
FFSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
FFSM Martin Ratio Rank: 79

XMHQ

XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 30
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 26
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
XMHQ 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.

FFSM vs. XMHQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). 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.

	FFSM	XMHQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.24	0.99	+1.25
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.14	1.56	+1.58
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.18	+0.22
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.84	1.72	+2.12
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.60	5.04	+10.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FFSM vs. XMHQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFSM Sharpe Ratio is 2.24, which is higher than the XMHQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFSM and XMHQ, 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

	FFSM	XMHQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.24	0.99	+1.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51	0.46	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.62	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	0.45	+0.14

Drawdowns

FFSM vs. XMHQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFSM drawdown since its inception was -26.65%, smaller than the maximum XMHQ drawdown of -58.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFSM and XMHQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFSM	XMHQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.65%	-58.19%	+31.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.37%	-8.85%	-1.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.78%	-24.56%	-0.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.65%	-25.47%	-1.18%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.90%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.74%	-0.37%	-0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.86%	-9.29%	+1.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.55%	3.02%	-0.47%

Volatility

FFSM vs. XMHQ - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) has a higher volatility of 5.78% compared to Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) at 4.70%. This indicates that FFSM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMHQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFSM	XMHQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.78%	4.70%	+1.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.99%	11.12%	+2.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.96%	15.46%	+2.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.66%	20.74%	-0.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.58%	20.71%	-0.13%

FFSM vs. XMHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFSM has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is higher than XMHQ's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFSM vs. XMHQ - Dividend Comparison

FFSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.46%, less than XMHQ's 0.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.46%	0.56%	0.62%	0.56%	0.58%	0.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	0.55%	0.64%	5.20%	0.73%	1.72%	1.00%	1.12%	1.22%	1.59%	1.06%	1.63%	1.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFSM and XMHQ in my portfolio?

FFSM and XMHQ 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, FFSM or XMHQ?

FFSM has higher volatility (5.78%) compared to XMHQ (4.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFSM dropped -26.65% vs XMHQ's -58.19%.

Which ETF is better, FFSM or XMHQ?

On 5-year performance, FFSM leads with 10.42% vs 9.42% for XMHQ. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, XMHQ has been the lower-risk option at 4.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFSM or XMHQ?

Over the 5-year period, FFSM has performed better with a 10.42% return vs 9.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFSM or XMHQ?

XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.43% for FFSM.

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

XMHQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.55%, compared with 0.46% for FFSM.

What is the main difference between FFSM and XMHQ?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for FFSM and 0.25% for XMHQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 0.99), 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.