FLDB vs. ONEQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLDB (Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF) and ONEQ (Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLDB is a Short-Term Bond fund actively managed by Fidelity, while ONEQ is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite Index. FLDB is actively managed, while ONEQ is passively managed. Over the past year, FLDB returned 4.19% vs 39.62% for ONEQ. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLDB charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.21%/yr for ONEQ.

Performance

FLDB vs. ONEQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF (FLDB) and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLDB achieves a 1.28% return, which is significantly lower than ONEQ's 16.16% return.

FLDB

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 0.19%
• YTD: 1.28%
• 6M: 1.64%
• 1Y: 4.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ONEQ

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: 7.21%
• YTD: 16.16%
• 6M: 15.18%
• 1Y: 39.62%
• 3Y*: 27.68%
• 5Y*: 15.43%
• 10Y*: 19.68%

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

FLDB vs. ONEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLDB Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF	1.28%	4.93%	4.29%
ONEQ Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF	16.16%	20.89%	21.57%

Correlation

The correlation between FLDB and ONEQ is 0.08, 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	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2024	0.04

Return for Risk

FLDB vs. ONEQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLDB

FLDB Risk / Return Rank: 98
FLDB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
FLDB Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
FLDB Omega Ratio Rank: 98
FLDB Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
FLDB Martin Ratio Rank: 99

ONEQ

ONEQ Risk / Return Rank: 68
ONEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
ONEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
ONEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 69
ONEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
ONEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

FLDB vs. ONEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF (FLDB) and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ). 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	ONEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	4.67	2.48	+2.19
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	8.43	3.26	+5.17
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.11	1.43	+0.68
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	25.08	3.15	+21.93
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	93.63	12.46	+81.17
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLDB vs. ONEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLDB Sharpe Ratio is 4.67, which is higher than the ONEQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLDB and ONEQ, 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

	FLDB	ONEQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.67	2.48	+2.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.70	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.91	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	3.56	0.65	+2.91

Drawdowns

FLDB vs. ONEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLDB drawdown since its inception was -0.49%, smaller than the maximum ONEQ drawdown of -55.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLDB and ONEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLDB	ONEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.49%	-55.09%	+54.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.17%	-12.64%	+12.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-24.09%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.23%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.23%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.13%	-0.85%	+0.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.05%	-7.95%	+7.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.04%	3.19%	-3.15%

Volatility

FLDB vs. ONEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF (FLDB) is 0.34%, while Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ) has a volatility of 4.20%. This indicates that FLDB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ONEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLDB	ONEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.34%	4.20%	-3.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.61%	11.96%	-11.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91%	16.05%	-15.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.31%	22.14%	-20.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.31%	21.71%	-20.40%

FLDB vs. ONEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLDB has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than ONEQ's 0.21% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FLDB vs. ONEQ - Dividend Comparison

FLDB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.45%, more than ONEQ's 0.67% 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%
ONEQ Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF	0.67%	0.54%	0.65%	0.71%	0.97%	0.54%	0.71%	2.51%	1.08%	0.84%	1.12%	1.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLDB and ONEQ in my portfolio?

FLDB and ONEQ have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLDB or ONEQ?

ONEQ has higher volatility (4.20%) compared to FLDB (0.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLDB dropped -0.49% vs ONEQ's -55.09%.

Which ETF is better, FLDB or ONEQ?

On 1-year performance, ONEQ leads with 39.62% vs 4.19% for FLDB. On fees, FLDB is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, FLDB has been the lower-risk option at 0.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLDB or ONEQ?

Over the 1-year period, ONEQ has performed better with a 39.62% return vs 4.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLDB or ONEQ?

FLDB is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.21% for ONEQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLDB or ONEQ?

FLDB has the higher dividend yield at 4.45%, compared with 0.67% for ONEQ.

What is the main difference between FLDB and ONEQ?

FLDB is categorized as Short-Term Bond, while ONEQ is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for FLDB and 0.21% for ONEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLDB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.67 vs 2.48), 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.