FMAT vs. BND
FMAT (Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF) and BND (Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FMAT is a Materials fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index, while BND is a Total Bond Market fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Float Adjusted Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FMAT returned 10.55%/yr vs 1.58%/yr for BND. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. FMAT charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for BND.
Performance
FMAT vs. BND - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FMAT achieves a 13.63% return, which is significantly higher than BND's 0.52% return. Over the past 10 years, FMAT has outperformed BND with an annualized return of 10.55%, while BND has yielded a comparatively lower 1.58% annualized return.
FMAT
- 1D
- 1.73%
- 1M
- 0.43%
- YTD
- 13.63%
- 6M
- 14.23%
- 1Y
- 23.84%
- 3Y*
- 11.38%
- 5Y*
- 6.23%
- 10Y*
- 10.55%
BND
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- 0.45%
- YTD
- 0.52%
- 6M
- 0.91%
- 1Y
- 4.77%
- 3Y*
- 4.17%
- 5Y*
- 0.03%
- 10Y*
- 1.58%
FMAT vs. BND - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF | 13.63% | 12.11% | 0.47% | 13.71% | -11.54% | 27.45% | 19.57% | 23.35% | -17.40% | 23.51% |
BND Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF | 0.52% | 7.08% | 1.38% | 5.65% | -13.11% | -1.86% | 7.71% | 8.84% | -0.12% | 3.57% |
Correlation
The correlation between FMAT and BND is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.03 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2013 | -0.02 |
The correlation between FMAT and BND shifts across timeframes, from -0.02 (all time) to 0.38 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
FMAT vs. BND — Risk / Return Rank
FMAT
BND
FMAT vs. BND - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND). 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.
| FMAT | BND | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.01 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.21 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.65 | 1.65 | 0.00 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.27 | 4.81 | +0.47 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FMAT vs. BND - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FMAT drawdown since its inception was -41.11%, which is greater than BND's maximum drawdown of -18.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAT and BND.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FMAT | BND | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -41.11% | -18.58% | -22.53% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.48% | -2.68% | -10.80% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.17% | -5.92% | -17.25% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.40% | -17.91% | -7.49% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -41.11% | -18.58% | -22.53% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.48% | -2.12% | -1.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.87% | -3.06% | -3.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.21% | 0.92% | +3.29% |
Volatility
FMAT vs. BND - Volatility Comparison
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) has a higher volatility of 7.54% compared to Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF (BND) at 1.28%. This indicates that FMAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BND based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FMAT | BND | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.54% | 1.28% | +6.26% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.80% | 2.74% | +12.06% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.44% | 3.75% | +14.69% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.74% | 6.03% | +13.71% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.25% | 5.53% | +15.72% |
FMAT vs. BND - Expense Ratio Comparison
FMAT has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is higher than BND's 0.03% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
FMAT vs. BND - Dividend Comparison
FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%, less than BND's 3.96% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BND Vanguard Total Bond Market ETF | 3.96% | 3.86% | 3.67% | 3.09% | 2.60% | 2.12% | 2.38% | 2.72% | 2.81% | 2.54% | 2.51% | 2.57% |
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF | 1.41% | 1.64% | 1.68% | 1.71% | 2.00% | 1.44% | 1.73% | 1.89% | 2.18% | 1.53% | 1.78% | 2.16% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FMAT and BND have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FMAT has higher volatility (7.54%) compared to BND (1.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAT dropped -41.11% vs BND's -18.58%.
On 10-year performance, FMAT leads with 10.55% vs 1.58% for BND. On fees, BND is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, BND has been the lower-risk option at 1.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, FMAT has performed better with a 10.55% return vs 1.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BND is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.08% for FMAT.
BND has the higher dividend yield at 3.96%, compared with 1.41% for FMAT.
FMAT is categorized as Materials, while BND is Total Bond Market. FMAT tracks MSCI USA IMI Materials Index, while BND tracks Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Float Adjusted Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FMAT and 0.03% for BND.
FMAT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.20 vs 1.18), 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.
Find the right allocation for FMAT and BND
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer