FLDB vs. MINT
FLDB (Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF) and MINT (PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLDB is a Short-Term Bond fund actively managed by Fidelity, while MINT is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PIMCO. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FLDB returned 4.45% vs 4.70% for MINT. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. FLDB charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for MINT.
Performance
FLDB vs. MINT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FLDB achieves a 1.41% return, which is significantly lower than MINT's 1.81% return.
FLDB
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.26%
- YTD
- 1.41%
- 6M
- 1.89%
- 1Y
- 4.45%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MINT
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- 0.37%
- YTD
- 1.81%
- 6M
- 2.20%
- 1Y
- 4.70%
- 3Y*
- 5.41%
- 5Y*
- 3.47%
- 10Y*
- 2.70%
FLDB vs. MINT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
FLDB Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF | 1.41% | 4.93% | 4.29% |
MINT PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF | 1.81% | 4.74% | 4.87% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLDB and MINT is -0.02, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.02 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2024 | -0.00 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
FLDB vs. MINT — Risk / Return Rank
FLDB
MINT
FLDB vs. MINT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF (FLDB) and PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF (MINT). 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.
| FLDB | MINT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 4.99 | 17.19 | -12.20 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 9.27 | 65.90 | -56.63 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 2.22 | 20.64 | -18.42 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 26.16 | 94.87 | -68.71 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 99.49 | 946.75 | -847.26 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FLDB | MINT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.99 | 17.19 | -12.20 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 6.00 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 2.87 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 3.62 | 2.47 | +1.16 |
Drawdowns
FLDB vs. MINT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLDB drawdown since its inception was -0.49%, smaller than the maximum MINT drawdown of -4.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLDB and MINT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLDB | MINT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -0.49% | -4.62% | +4.13% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.17% | -0.05% | -0.12% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -0.16% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -2.42% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -4.62% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.05% | -0.17% | +0.12% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.04% | 0.00% | +0.04% |
Volatility
FLDB vs. MINT - Volatility Comparison
Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF (FLDB) has a higher volatility of 0.32% compared to PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF (MINT) at 0.09%. This indicates that FLDB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MINT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLDB | MINT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.32% | 0.09% | +0.23% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.60% | 0.20% | +0.40% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.90% | 0.27% | +0.63% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.31% | 0.58% | +0.73% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 1.31% | 0.95% | +0.36% |
FLDB vs. MINT - Expense Ratio Comparison
FLDB has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than MINT's 0.36% expense ratio.
Dividends
FLDB vs. MINT - Dividend Comparison
FLDB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.45%, more than MINT's 4.29% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLDB Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF | 4.45% | 4.72% | 3.58% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
MINT PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF | 4.29% | 4.63% | 5.22% | 4.91% | 1.90% | 0.44% | 1.15% | 2.65% | 2.32% | 1.61% | 1.35% | 0.88% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FLDB and MINT have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FLDB has higher volatility (0.32%) compared to MINT (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLDB dropped -0.49% vs MINT's -4.62%.
On 1-year performance, MINT leads with 4.70% vs 4.45% for FLDB. On fees, FLDB is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, MINT has been the lower-risk option at 0.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, MINT has performed better with a 4.70% return vs 4.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FLDB is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for MINT.
FLDB has the higher dividend yield at 4.45%, compared with 4.29% for MINT.
FLDB is categorized as Short-Term Bond, while MINT is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for FLDB and 0.36% for MINT.
MINT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (17.19 vs 4.99), 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.
Find the right allocation for FLDB and MINT
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer