FLFGX vs. FLMFX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLFGX (Meeder Global Allocation Fund) and FLMFX (Meeder Muirfield Fund) are both mutual funds - FLFGX is a Global Allocation fund managed by Meeder Funds, while FLMFX is a Tactical Allocation fund managed by Meeder Funds. Over the past 10 years, FLFGX returned 9.88%/yr vs 11.94%/yr for FLMFX. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLFGX charges 1.81%/yr vs 1.20%/yr for FLMFX.

Performance

FLFGX vs. FLMFX - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLFGX achieves a 12.92% return, which is significantly higher than FLMFX's 11.42% return. Over the past 10 years, FLFGX has underperformed FLMFX with an annualized return of 9.88%, while FLMFX has yielded a comparatively higher 11.94% annualized return.

FLFGX

• 1D: 0.39%
• 1M: 5.27%
• YTD: 12.92%
• 6M: 13.70%
• 1Y: 26.01%
• 3Y*: 21.02%
• 5Y*: 11.10%
• 10Y*: 9.88%

FLMFX

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 5.10%
• YTD: 11.42%
• 6M: 12.19%
• 1Y: 27.32%
• 3Y*: 23.82%
• 5Y*: 13.71%
• 10Y*: 11.94%

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

FLFGX vs. FLMFX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLFGX Meeder Global Allocation Fund	12.92%	18.82%	22.53%	15.37%	-12.93%	12.57%	2.99%	13.17%	-6.93%	22.34%
FLMFX Meeder Muirfield Fund	11.42%	15.28%	36.53%	13.79%	-11.16%	20.18%	4.36%	13.52%	-3.65%	20.30%

Correlation

The correlation between FLFGX and FLMFX is 0.98 - 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	0.98
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.95
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2006	0.94

The correlation between FLFGX and FLMFX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FLFGX vs. FLMFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLFGX

FLFGX Risk / Return Rank: 57
FLFGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
FLFGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
FLFGX Omega Ratio Rank: 52
FLFGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
FLFGX Martin Ratio Rank: 66

FLMFX

FLMFX Risk / Return Rank: 62
FLMFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
FLMFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
FLMFX Omega Ratio Rank: 57
FLMFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
FLMFX Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

FLFGX vs. FLMFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Meeder Global Allocation Fund (FLFGX) and Meeder Muirfield Fund (FLMFX). 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.

	FLFGX	FLMFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.20	2.34	-0.14
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.09	3.22	-0.13
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.42	-0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.94	3.02	-0.08
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.97	13.25	-0.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLFGX vs. FLMFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLFGX Sharpe Ratio is 2.20, which is comparable to the FLMFX Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLFGX and FLMFX, 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

	FLFGX	FLMFX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.20	2.34	-0.14
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73	0.95	-0.21
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71	0.85	-0.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	0.65	-0.32

Drawdowns

FLFGX vs. FLMFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLFGX drawdown since its inception was -60.31%, which is greater than FLMFX's maximum drawdown of -42.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLFGX and FLMFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLFGX	FLMFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.31%	-42.42%	-17.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.89%	-9.26%	+0.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.63%	-16.08%	+1.45%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.54%	-18.19%	-10.35%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-28.54%	-24.33%	-4.21%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.47%	-9.27%	-2.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.01%	2.11%	-0.10%

Volatility

FLFGX vs. FLMFX - Volatility Comparison

Meeder Global Allocation Fund (FLFGX) has a higher volatility of 3.68% compared to Meeder Muirfield Fund (FLMFX) at 3.30%. This indicates that FLFGX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLMFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLFGX	FLMFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.68%	3.30%	+0.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.44%	9.17%	+0.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.88%	11.97%	-0.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.19%	14.54%	+0.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.92%	14.06%	-0.14%

FLFGX vs. FLMFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLFGX has a 1.81% expense ratio, which is higher than FLMFX's 1.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLFGX vs. FLMFX - Dividend Comparison

FLFGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.54%, more than FLMFX's 4.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLFGX Meeder Global Allocation Fund	12.54%	14.35%	25.20%	1.64%	0.77%	11.13%	2.22%	2.12%	5.05%	1.41%	1.14%	3.15%
FLMFX Meeder Muirfield Fund	4.90%	5.55%	31.99%	2.83%	2.76%	3.39%	0.58%	2.69%	1.50%	8.25%	0.72%	2.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLFGX and FLMFX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, FLFGX and FLMFX 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, FLFGX or FLMFX?

FLFGX has higher volatility (3.68%) compared to FLMFX (3.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLFGX dropped -60.31% vs FLMFX's -42.42%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLMFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 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.