FLDR vs. QDTE

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

FLDR (Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF) and QDTE (Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLDR is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the Fidelity Low Duration Investment Grade Factor Index, while QDTE is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Roundhill. FLDR is passively managed, while QDTE is actively managed. Over the past year, FLDR returned 4.67% vs 34.41% for QDTE. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLDR charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.97%/yr for QDTE.

Performance

FLDR vs. QDTE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF (FLDR) and Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF (QDTE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLDR achieves a 1.37% return, which is significantly lower than QDTE's 12.44% return.

FLDR

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.23%
• YTD: 1.37%
• 6M: 1.74%
• 1Y: 4.67%
• 3Y*: 5.32%
• 5Y*: 3.67%
• 10Y*: —

QDTE

• 1D: 1.85%
• 1M: 0.70%
• YTD: 12.44%
• 6M: 11.71%
• 1Y: 34.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLDR vs. QDTE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLDR Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF	1.37%	5.41%	4.45%
QDTE Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF	12.44%	19.32%	16.07%

Correlation

The correlation between FLDR and QDTE is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2024	0.09

Return for Risk

FLDR vs. QDTE — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLDR

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

QDTE

QDTE Risk / Return Rank: 74
QDTE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
QDTE Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
QDTE Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QDTE Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QDTE Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

FLDR vs. QDTE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF (FLDR) and Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF (QDTE). 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.

	FLDR	QDTE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	5.83	2.20	+3.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	9.84	2.77	+7.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.70	1.39	+1.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.04	3.39	+6.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	68.61	13.52	+55.08
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLDR vs. QDTE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLDR Sharpe Ratio is 5.83, which is higher than the QDTE Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLDR and QDTE, 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

	FLDR	QDTE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.83	2.20	+3.62
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	3.05	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	1.17	-0.56

Drawdowns

FLDR vs. QDTE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLDR drawdown since its inception was -12.23%, smaller than the maximum QDTE drawdown of -22.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLDR and QDTE.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLDR	QDTE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.23%	-22.86%	+10.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.47%	-10.20%	+9.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-0.76%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-2.33%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.08%	-3.70%	+3.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.35%	-3.14%	+2.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.07%	2.55%	-2.48%

Volatility

FLDR vs. QDTE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF (FLDR) is 0.19%, while Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF (QDTE) has a volatility of 6.57%. This indicates that FLDR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QDTE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLDR	QDTE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.19%	6.57%	-6.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.59%	12.26%	-11.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81%	15.71%	-14.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.21%	18.72%	-17.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.26%	18.72%	-13.46%

FLDR vs. QDTE - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLDR has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than QDTE's 0.97% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLDR vs. QDTE - Dividend Comparison

FLDR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.43%, less than QDTE's 44.14% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FLDR Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF	4.43%	4.66%	5.50%	5.28%	2.09%	0.51%	1.22%	2.69%	1.38%
QDTE Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF	44.14%	49.49%	32.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLDR and QDTE in my portfolio?

FLDR and QDTE have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLDR or QDTE?

QDTE has higher volatility (6.57%) compared to FLDR (0.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLDR dropped -12.23% vs QDTE's -22.86%.

Which ETF is better, FLDR or QDTE?

On 1-year performance, QDTE leads with 34.41% vs 4.67% for FLDR. On fees, FLDR is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FLDR has been the lower-risk option at 0.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLDR or QDTE?

Over the 1-year period, QDTE has performed better with a 34.41% return vs 4.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLDR or QDTE?

FLDR is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for QDTE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLDR or QDTE?

QDTE has the higher dividend yield at 44.14%, compared with 4.43% for FLDR.

What is the main difference between FLDR and QDTE?

FLDR is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while QDTE is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FLDR and 0.97% for QDTE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLDR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.83 vs 2.20), 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.