FLMFX vs. FLDFX

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FLMFX (Meeder Muirfield Fund) and FLDFX (Meeder Balanced Fund) are both Tactical Allocation funds from Meeder Funds. Over the past 10 years, FLMFX returned 12.23%/yr vs 9.25%/yr for FLDFX. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FLMFX charges 1.20%/yr vs 1.39%/yr for FLDFX.

Performance

FLMFX vs. FLDFX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Meeder Muirfield Fund (FLMFX) 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, FLMFX achieves a 10.81% return, which is significantly higher than FLDFX's 8.36% return. Over the past 10 years, FLMFX has outperformed FLDFX with an annualized return of 12.23%, while FLDFX has yielded a comparatively lower 9.25% annualized return.

FLMFX

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 1.19%
• YTD: 10.81%
• 6M: 9.73%
• 1Y: 25.81%
• 3Y*: 23.41%
• 5Y*: 13.49%
• 10Y*: 12.23%

FLDFX

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 1.17%
• YTD: 8.36%
• 6M: 7.71%
• 1Y: 19.63%
• 3Y*: 18.33%
• 5Y*: 9.94%
• 10Y*: 9.25%

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

FLMFX vs. FLDFX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLMFX Meeder Muirfield Fund	10.81%	15.28%	36.53%	13.79%	-11.16%	20.18%	4.36%	13.52%	-3.65%	20.30%
FLDFX Meeder Balanced Fund	8.36%	12.35%	26.72%	12.08%	-11.07%	13.22%	5.27%	12.29%	-3.25%	14.74%

Correlation

The correlation between FLMFX 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	0.98
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.98
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2006	0.96

The correlation between FLMFX and FLDFX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FLMFX vs. FLDFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLMFX

FLMFX Risk / Return Rank: 62
FLMFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
FLMFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
FLMFX Omega Ratio Rank: 57
FLMFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
FLMFX Martin Ratio Rank: 69

FLDFX

FLDFX Risk / Return Rank: 63
FLDFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
FLDFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
FLDFX Omega Ratio Rank: 62
FLDFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
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.

FLMFX vs. FLDFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	FLMFX	FLDFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.14	2.17	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.92	3.05	-0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.40	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	2.84	+0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.52	12.22	+0.30

FLMFX vs. FLDFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLMFX Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is comparable to the FLDFX Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLMFX 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.

Drawdowns

FLMFX vs. FLDFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLMFX drawdown since its inception was -42.42%, which is greater than FLDFX's maximum drawdown of -36.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLMFX and FLDFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLMFX	FLDFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.42%	-36.88%	-5.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.26%	-7.19%	-2.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.08%	-11.47%	-4.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.19%	-20.41%	+2.22%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.33%	-20.41%	-3.92%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.54%	-0.41%	-0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.25%	-7.95%	-1.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.14%	1.67%	+0.47%

Volatility

FLMFX vs. FLDFX - Volatility Comparison

Meeder Muirfield Fund (FLMFX) has a higher volatility of 4.65% compared to Meeder Balanced Fund (FLDFX) at 3.54%. This indicates that FLMFX'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

	FLMFX	FLDFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.65%	3.54%	+1.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.95%	7.56%	+2.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.61%	9.41%	+3.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.64%	11.83%	+2.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.12%	10.64%	+3.48%

FLMFX vs. FLDFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLMFX has a 1.20% expense ratio, which is lower than FLDFX's 1.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLMFX vs. FLDFX - Dividend Comparison

FLMFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.92%, more than FLDFX's 3.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLDFX Meeder Balanced Fund	3.24%	3.50%	26.22%	1.58%	3.76%	8.15%	0.60%	1.43%	1.41%	6.08%	1.11%	1.26%
FLMFX Meeder Muirfield Fund	4.92%	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 FLMFX and FLDFX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.99, FLMFX 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, FLMFX or FLDFX?

FLMFX has higher volatility (4.65%) compared to FLDFX (3.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLMFX dropped -42.42% vs FLDFX's -36.88%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLDFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 2.14), 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.