FMAT vs. EAPCX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FMAT (Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF) and EAPCX (Parametric Commodity Strategy Fund Class A) are both funds - FMAT is a Materials fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index, while EAPCX is a Commodities fund managed by Eaton Vance. Over the past 10 years, FMAT returned 10.33%/yr vs 10.84%/yr for EAPCX. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FMAT charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.91%/yr for EAPCX.

Performance

FMAT vs. EAPCX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Parametric Commodity Strategy Fund Class A (EAPCX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FMAT achieves a 13.04% return, which is significantly lower than EAPCX's 22.29% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with FMAT having a 10.33% annualized return and EAPCX not far ahead at 10.84%.

FMAT

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: 2.43%
• YTD: 13.04%
• 6M: 16.00%
• 1Y: 22.50%
• 3Y*: 12.38%
• 5Y*: 5.79%
• 10Y*: 10.33%

EAPCX

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: -1.11%
• YTD: 22.29%
• 6M: 24.53%
• 1Y: 41.38%
• 3Y*: 18.36%
• 5Y*: 14.60%
• 10Y*: 10.84%

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

FMAT vs. EAPCX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	13.04%	12.11%	0.47%	13.71%	-11.54%	27.45%	19.57%	23.35%	-17.40%	23.51%
EAPCX Parametric Commodity Strategy Fund Class A	22.29%	22.06%	9.63%	-4.87%	17.26%	29.92%	7.77%	9.19%	-9.60%	6.71%

Correlation

The correlation between FMAT and EAPCX is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.33
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2013	0.36

The correlation between FMAT and EAPCX shifts across timeframes, from 0.20 (1 year) to 0.36 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

FMAT vs. EAPCX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMAT

FMAT Risk / Return Rank: 34
FMAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
FMAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
FMAT Omega Ratio Rank: 32
FMAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
FMAT Martin Ratio Rank: 35

EAPCX

EAPCX Risk / Return Rank: 89
EAPCX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
EAPCX Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
EAPCX Omega Ratio Rank: 82
EAPCX Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
EAPCX Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

FMAT vs. EAPCX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Parametric Commodity Strategy Fund Class A (EAPCX). 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.

	FMAT	EAPCX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.28	3.06	-1.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.85	3.87	-2.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.54	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	5.85	-4.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.51	20.87	-15.36
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FMAT vs. EAPCX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.28, which is lower than the EAPCX Sharpe Ratio of 3.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMAT and EAPCX, 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

	FMAT	EAPCX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.28	3.06	-1.77
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30	1.00	-0.71
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.49	0.82	-0.33
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.31	+0.14

Drawdowns

FMAT vs. EAPCX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMAT drawdown since its inception was -41.11%, smaller than the maximum EAPCX drawdown of -52.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAT and EAPCX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMAT	EAPCX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.11%	-52.59%	+11.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.48%	-7.22%	-6.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.17%	-10.57%	-12.60%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.40%	-18.05%	-7.35%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.11%	-28.81%	-12.30%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.97%	-3.96%	-0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.87%	-22.77%	+15.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.09%	2.02%	+2.07%

Volatility

FMAT vs. EAPCX - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) has a higher volatility of 6.14% compared to Parametric Commodity Strategy Fund Class A (EAPCX) at 4.17%. This indicates that FMAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EAPCX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FMAT	EAPCX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.14%	4.17%	+1.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.95%	11.59%	+2.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.66%	13.90%	+3.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.60%	14.64%	+4.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.19%	13.26%	+7.93%

FMAT vs. EAPCX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMAT has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than EAPCX's 0.91% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMAT vs. EAPCX - Dividend Comparison

FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, less than EAPCX's 10.82% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EAPCX Parametric Commodity Strategy Fund Class A	10.82%	13.23%	5.46%	3.43%	14.80%	13.74%	3.01%	1.11%	0.41%	4.98%	6.49%	0.00%
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	1.42%	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

Can I hold both FMAT and EAPCX in my portfolio?

FMAT and EAPCX have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FMAT or EAPCX?

FMAT has higher volatility (6.14%) compared to EAPCX (4.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAT dropped -41.11% vs EAPCX's -52.59%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EAPCX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 vs 1.28), 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.