FMAG vs. FFOG

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FMAG (Fidelity Magellan ETF) and FFOG (Franklin Focused Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FMAG is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while FFOG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FMAG returned 12.33% vs 23.27% for FFOG. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FMAG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for FFOG.

Performance

FMAG vs. FFOG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Magellan ETF (FMAG) and Franklin Focused Growth ETF (FFOG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FMAG achieves a 7.11% return, which is significantly lower than FFOG's 9.25% return.

FMAG

• 1D: -0.98%
• 1M: 1.26%
• YTD: 7.11%
• 6M: 6.48%
• 1Y: 12.33%
• 3Y*: 20.08%
• 5Y*: 10.98%
• 10Y*: —

FFOG

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: 1.69%
• YTD: 9.25%
• 6M: 8.42%
• 1Y: 23.27%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FMAG vs. FFOG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FMAG Fidelity Magellan ETF	7.11%	10.40%	28.52%	10.56%
FFOG Franklin Focused Growth ETF	9.25%	17.09%	38.20%	12.25%

Correlation

The correlation between FMAG and FFOG is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2023	0.91

The correlation between FMAG and FFOG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMAG vs. FFOG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMAG	FFOG
Technology	42.7%	58.2%
Industrials	15.7%	6.1%
Consumer Cyclical	12.9%	11.7%
Financial Services	12.2%	2.4%
Communication Services	5.6%	12.9%
Healthcare	4.0%	5.6%
Basic Materials	4.0%	-
Utilities	2.3%	1.6%
Consumer Defensive	1.7%	-
Real Estate	1.3%	-
Energy	-	0.7%

Return for Risk

FMAG vs. FFOG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMAG

FMAG Risk / Return Rank: 22
FMAG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
FMAG Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
FMAG Omega Ratio Rank: 22
FMAG Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FMAG Martin Ratio Rank: 24

FFOG

FFOG Risk / Return Rank: 27
FFOG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
FFOG Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
FFOG Omega Ratio Rank: 30
FFOG Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
FFOG Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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.

FMAG vs. FFOG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Magellan ETF (FMAG) and Franklin Focused Growth ETF (FFOG). 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.

	FMAG	FFOG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.81	1.09	-0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.21	1.53	-0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.20	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.89	1.07	-0.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.09	3.13	-0.04

FMAG vs. FFOG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMAG Sharpe Ratio is 0.81, which is comparable to the FFOG Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMAG and FFOG, 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

FMAG vs. FFOG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMAG drawdown since its inception was -32.93%, which is greater than FFOG's maximum drawdown of -25.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAG and FFOG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMAG	FFOG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.93%	-25.38%	-7.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.97%	-21.90%	+7.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.12%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.93%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.55%	-2.23%	+0.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.92%	-4.58%	-4.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.00%	7.45%	-3.45%

Volatility

FMAG vs. FFOG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Magellan ETF (FMAG) is 6.45%, while Franklin Focused Growth ETF (FFOG) has a volatility of 8.80%. This indicates that FMAG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFOG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FMAG	FFOG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.45%	8.80%	-2.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.63%	17.14%	-4.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.32%	21.53%	-6.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.00%	24.10%	-4.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.76%	24.10%	-4.34%

FMAG vs. FFOG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMAG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than FFOG's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMAG vs. FFOG - Dividend Comparison

FMAG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.08%, while FFOG has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FFOG Franklin Focused Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FMAG Fidelity Magellan ETF	0.08%	0.09%	0.15%	0.34%	0.23%	0.03%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMAG and FFOG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, FMAG and FFOG 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, FMAG or FFOG?

FFOG has higher volatility (8.80%) compared to FMAG (6.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAG dropped -32.93% vs FFOG's -25.38%.

Which ETF is better, FMAG or FFOG?

On 1-year performance, FFOG leads with 23.27% vs 12.33% for FMAG. On fees, FFOG is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, FMAG has been the lower-risk option at 6.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMAG or FFOG?

Over the 1-year period, FFOG has performed better with a 23.27% return vs 12.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMAG or FFOG?

FFOG is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FMAG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FMAG or FFOG?

FMAG has the higher dividend yield at 0.08%, compared with 0.00% for FFOG.

What is the main difference between FMAG and FFOG?

FMAG is categorized as Global Equities, while FFOG is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FMAG and 0.55% for FFOG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFOG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.09 vs 0.81), 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.