FGBMX vs. IMCDX

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

FGBMX (Fidelity Advisor New Markets Income Fund Class Z) and IMCDX (Voya Emerging Markets Corporate Debt Fund) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds. Their 0.64 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FGBMX charges 0.73%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IMCDX.

Performance

FGBMX vs. IMCDX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Advisor New Markets Income Fund Class Z (FGBMX) and Voya Emerging Markets Corporate Debt Fund (IMCDX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

FGBMX

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: -1.57%
• 6M: 1.11%
• YTD: 2.62%
• 1Y: 10.21%
• 3Y*: 10.70%
• 5Y*: 3.50%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.18%

IMCDX

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FGBMX Fidelity Advisor New Markets Income Fund Class Z	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

FGBMX vs. IMCDX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FGBMX Fidelity Advisor New Markets Income Fund Class Z	2.62%	14.93%	6.88%	14.10%	-16.03%	-2.36%	4.63%	10.73%	0.15%
IMCDX Voya Emerging Markets Corporate Debt Fund	0.00%	0.00%	6.44%	8.51%	-13.79%	0.08%	8.35%	13.65%	0.87%

Correlation

The correlation between FGBMX and IMCDX is 0.64, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.50
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2018	0.64

The correlation between FGBMX and IMCDX shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (3 years) to 0.64 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

FGBMX vs. IMCDX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FGBMX

FGBMX Risk / Return Rank: 90
FGBMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
FGBMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
FGBMX Omega Ratio Rank: 90
FGBMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
FGBMX Martin Ratio Rank: 87

IMCDX

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FGBMX vs. IMCDX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Advisor New Markets Income Fund Class Z (FGBMX) and Voya Emerging Markets Corporate Debt Fund (IMCDX). 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.

	FGBMX	IMCDX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.45	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.03	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.81	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.71	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	FGBMX	IMCDX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.12%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.85%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.87%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.12%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.81%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.02%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.92%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FGBMX	IMCDX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.86%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.56%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.41%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.63%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.23%	—	—

FGBMX vs. IMCDX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGBMX has a 0.73% expense ratio, which is higher than IMCDX's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

FGBMX vs. IMCDX - Dividend Comparison

FGBMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.65%, while IMCDX has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FGBMX Fidelity Advisor New Markets Income Fund Class Z	4.65%	5.13%	4.79%	5.24%	4.00%	3.55%	4.14%	4.62%	0.43%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IMCDX Voya Emerging Markets Corporate Debt Fund	0.00%	0.00%	4.08%	4.21%	3.80%	6.14%	4.64%	4.99%	5.30%	4.79%	5.22%	5.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FGBMX and IMCDX in my portfolio?

FGBMX and IMCDX 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.