FLDGX vs. FLDFX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLDGX (Meeder Dynamic Allocation Fund) and FLDFX (Meeder Balanced Fund) are both mutual funds - FLDGX is a Diversified Portfolio fund managed by Meeder Funds, while FLDFX is a Tactical Allocation fund managed by Meeder Funds. Over the past 10 years, FLDGX returned 13.43%/yr vs 9.06%/yr for FLDFX. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FLDGX charges 1.32%/yr vs 1.39%/yr for FLDFX.

Performance

FLDGX vs. FLDFX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Meeder Dynamic Allocation Fund (FLDGX) and Meeder Balanced Fund (FLDFX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLDGX achieves a 12.36% return, which is significantly higher than FLDFX's 8.73% return. Over the past 10 years, FLDGX has outperformed FLDFX with an annualized return of 13.43%, while FLDFX has yielded a comparatively lower 9.06% annualized return.

FLDGX

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 5.11%
• YTD: 12.36%
• 6M: 12.95%
• 1Y: 27.10%
• 3Y*: 24.06%
• 5Y*: 13.65%
• 10Y*: 13.43%

FLDFX

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 3.89%
• YTD: 8.73%
• 6M: 9.16%
• 1Y: 20.90%
• 3Y*: 18.60%
• 5Y*: 10.12%
• 10Y*: 9.06%

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

FLDGX vs. FLDFX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLDGX Meeder Dynamic Allocation Fund	12.36%	17.24%	30.96%	20.70%	-15.46%	19.51%	15.41%	24.00%	-8.65%	21.22%
FLDFX Meeder Balanced Fund	8.73%	12.35%	26.72%	12.08%	-11.07%	13.22%	5.27%	12.29%	-3.25%	14.74%

Correlation

The correlation between FLDGX and FLDFX is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.99
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.99
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2006	0.96

The correlation between FLDGX and FLDFX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FLDGX vs. FLDFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLDGX

FLDGX Risk / Return Rank: 62
FLDGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
FLDGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
FLDGX Omega Ratio Rank: 57
FLDGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
FLDGX Martin Ratio Rank: 72

FLDFX

FLDFX Risk / Return Rank: 64
FLDFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
FLDFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
FLDFX Omega Ratio Rank: 62
FLDFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
FLDFX 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.

FLDGX vs. FLDFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Meeder Dynamic Allocation Fund (FLDGX) and Meeder Balanced Fund (FLDFX). 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.

	FLDGX	FLDFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.30	2.39	-0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.23	3.39	-0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.44	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.00	2.96	+0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.68	12.96	+0.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLDGX vs. FLDFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLDGX Sharpe Ratio is 2.30, which is comparable to the FLDFX Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLDGX and FLDFX, 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

	FLDGX	FLDFX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.30	2.39	-0.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72	0.87	-0.14
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.73	0.86	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	0.53	-0.21

Drawdowns

FLDGX vs. FLDFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLDGX drawdown since its inception was -58.72%, which is greater than FLDFX's maximum drawdown of -36.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLDGX and FLDFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLDGX	FLDFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.72%	-36.88%	-21.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.17%	-7.19%	-1.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.64%	-11.47%	-5.17%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.96%	-20.41%	-13.55%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.96%	-20.41%	-13.55%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.83%	-7.97%	-8.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.01%	1.64%	+0.37%

Volatility

FLDGX vs. FLDFX - Volatility Comparison

Meeder Dynamic Allocation Fund (FLDGX) has a higher volatility of 3.34% compared to Meeder Balanced Fund (FLDFX) at 2.67%. This indicates that FLDGX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLDFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLDGX	FLDFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.34%	2.67%	+0.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.37%	7.00%	+2.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.96%	8.89%	+3.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.93%	11.76%	+7.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.50%	10.60%	+7.90%

FLDGX vs. FLDFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLDGX has a 1.32% expense ratio, which is lower than FLDFX's 1.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLDGX vs. FLDFX - Dividend Comparison

FLDGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.72%, more than FLDFX's 3.23% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLDFX Meeder Balanced Fund	3.23%	3.50%	26.22%	1.58%	3.76%	8.15%	0.60%	1.43%	1.41%	6.08%	1.11%	1.26%
FLDGX Meeder Dynamic Allocation Fund	6.72%	7.53%	29.01%	0.99%	3.71%	14.92%	2.21%	2.21%	1.30%	8.48%	1.44%	3.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLDGX and FLDFX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.99, FLDGX and FLDFX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FLDGX or FLDFX?

FLDGX has higher volatility (3.34%) compared to FLDFX (2.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLDGX dropped -58.72% vs FLDFX's -36.88%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLDFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 2.30), 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.