FLMFX vs. FLDGX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLMFX (Meeder Muirfield Fund) and FLDGX (Meeder Dynamic Allocation Fund) are both mutual funds - FLMFX is a Tactical Allocation fund managed by Meeder Funds, while FLDGX is a Diversified Portfolio fund managed by Meeder Funds. Over the past 10 years, FLMFX returned 11.94%/yr vs 13.43%/yr for FLDGX. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLMFX charges 1.20%/yr vs 1.32%/yr for FLDGX.

Performance

FLMFX vs. FLDGX - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLMFX achieves a 11.42% return, which is significantly lower than FLDGX's 12.36% return. Over the past 10 years, FLMFX has underperformed FLDGX with an annualized return of 11.94%, while FLDGX has yielded a comparatively higher 13.43% annualized return.

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%

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%

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

FLMFX vs. FLDGX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLMFX Meeder Muirfield Fund	11.42%	15.28%	36.53%	13.79%	-11.16%	20.18%	4.36%	13.52%	-3.65%	20.30%
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%

Correlation

The correlation between FLMFX and FLDGX 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	0.98
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 29, 2000	0.93

The correlation between FLMFX and FLDGX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FLMFX vs. FLDGX — 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: 63
FLMFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
FLMFX Omega Ratio Rank: 57
FLMFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
FLMFX Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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

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. FLDGX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	FLMFX	FLDGX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.34	2.30	+0.04
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.22	3.23	-0.01
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.42	0.00
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.02	3.00	+0.02
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.25	13.68	-0.44
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLMFX vs. FLDGX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLMFX Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is comparable to the FLDGX Sharpe Ratio of 2.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLMFX and FLDGX, 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

	FLMFX	FLDGX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.34	2.30	+0.04
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.95	0.72	+0.22
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.85	0.73	+0.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.65	0.32	+0.33

Drawdowns

FLMFX vs. FLDGX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLMFX drawdown since its inception was -42.42%, smaller than the maximum FLDGX drawdown of -58.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLMFX and FLDGX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLMFX	FLDGX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.42%	-58.72%	+16.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.26%	-9.17%	-0.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.08%	-16.64%	+0.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.19%	-33.96%	+15.77%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.33%	-33.96%	+9.63%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.27%	-16.83%	+7.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.11%	2.01%	+0.10%

Volatility

FLMFX vs. FLDGX - Volatility Comparison

Meeder Muirfield Fund (FLMFX) and Meeder Dynamic Allocation Fund (FLDGX) have volatilities of 3.30% and 3.34%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLMFX	FLDGX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.30%	3.34%	-0.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.17%	9.37%	-0.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.97%	11.96%	+0.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.54%	18.93%	-4.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.06%	18.50%	-4.44%

FLMFX vs. FLDGX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLMFX has a 1.20% expense ratio, which is lower than FLDGX's 1.32% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLMFX vs. FLDGX - Dividend Comparison

FLMFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.90%, less than FLDGX's 6.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
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 FLMFX and FLDGX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.99, FLMFX and FLDGX 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 FLDGX?

FLDGX has higher volatility (3.34%) compared to FLMFX (3.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLMFX dropped -42.42% vs FLDGX's -58.72%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLMFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 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.