FGRO vs. XMLV

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

FGRO (Fidelity Growth Opportunities ETF) and XMLV (Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FGRO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while XMLV is a Volatility Hedged Equity fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Low Volatility Index. FGRO is actively managed, while XMLV is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. FGRO charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for XMLV.

Performance

FGRO vs. XMLV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Growth Opportunities ETF (FGRO) and Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF (XMLV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

FGRO

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

XMLV

• 1D: 2.59%
• 1M: 5.75%
• 6M: 8.89%
• YTD: 12.59%
• 1Y: 15.61%
• 3Y*: 12.63%
• 5Y*: 7.68%
• 10Y*: 8.18%

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

FGRO vs. XMLV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
FGRO Fidelity Growth Opportunities ETF	-1.24%
XMLV Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF	7.74%

Correlation

The correlation between FGRO and XMLV is -0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 8, 2026	-0.05

FGRO vs. XMLV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FGRO	XMLV
Technology	47.1%	1.0%
Communication Services	18.4%	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	12.3%	4.4%
Healthcare	7.9%	2.1%
Industrials	5.7%	9.8%
Financial Services	4.8%	24.2%
Basic Materials	1.5%	1.1%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	2.5%
Real Estate	0.7%	33.7%
Utilities	0.5%	18.5%
Energy	0.2%	3.7%

Return for Risk

FGRO vs. XMLV — Risk / Return Rank

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

FGRO

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

XMLV

XMLV Risk / Return Rank: 53
XMLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
XMLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
XMLV Omega Ratio Rank: 47
XMLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
XMLV Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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.

FGRO vs. XMLV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Growth Opportunities ETF (FGRO) and Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF (XMLV). 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.

	FGRO	XMLV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.45	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.16	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.25	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.23	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	7.36	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	FGRO	XMLV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-39.86%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-7.03%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.80%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-16.53%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	0.00%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-4.24%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.12%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FGRO	XMLV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	4.04%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	8.30%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	10.81%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	14.52%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	16.96%	—

FGRO vs. XMLV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGRO has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than XMLV's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

FGRO vs. XMLV - Dividend Comparison

FGRO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XMLV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.82%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FGRO Fidelity Growth Opportunities ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XMLV Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF	2.82%	2.87%	2.23%	2.34%	2.05%	1.14%	1.93%	2.02%	2.13%	1.74%	1.72%	1.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FGRO and XMLV in my portfolio?

FGRO and XMLV have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FGRO or XMLV?

On fees, XMLV is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FGRO or XMLV?

XMLV is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FGRO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FGRO or XMLV?

XMLV has the higher dividend yield at 2.82%, compared with 0.00% for FGRO.

What is the main difference between FGRO and XMLV?

FGRO is categorized as Global Equities, while XMLV is Volatility Hedged Equity. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FGRO and 0.25% for XMLV.