FMAT vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FMAT (Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FMAT is a Materials fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index, while FBCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. FMAT is passively managed, while FBCG is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FMAT returned 5.79%/yr vs 15.84%/yr for FBCG. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FMAT charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

FMAT vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG). 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 FBCG's 15.59% return.

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%

FBCG

• 1D: -1.05%
• 1M: 7.84%
• YTD: 15.59%
• 6M: 15.51%
• 1Y: 39.38%
• 3Y*: 30.60%
• 5Y*: 15.84%
• 10Y*: —

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

FMAT vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	13.04%	12.11%	0.47%	13.71%	-11.54%	27.45%	27.13%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	15.59%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	42.99%

Correlation

The correlation between FMAT and FBCG is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2020	0.56

The correlation between FMAT and FBCG shifts across timeframes, from 0.45 (1 year) to 0.59 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FMAT vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMAT	FBCG
Basic Materials	90.1%	0.6%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	17.2%
Energy	0.6%	0.4%
Healthcare	0.5%	6.7%
Industrials	0.1%	5.7%
Consumer Defensive	0.1%	1.3%
Technology	0.1%	48.3%
Communication Services	-	16.6%
Financial Services	-	2.2%
Real Estate	-	0.7%
Utilities	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

FMAT vs. FBCG — 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

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 57
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 58
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG). 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	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.28	2.14	-0.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.85	2.84	-0.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.36	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	2.61	-0.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.51	10.14	-4.63
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. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.28, which is lower than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMAT and FBCG, 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	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.28	2.14	-0.85
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30	0.62	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.49	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.83	-0.39

Drawdowns

FMAT vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMAT drawdown since its inception was -41.11%, smaller than the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAT and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMAT	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.11%	-43.56%	+2.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.48%	-15.17%	+1.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.17%	-27.89%	+4.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.40%	-43.56%	+18.16%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.11%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.97%	-1.05%	-2.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.87%	-11.49%	+4.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.09%	3.90%	+0.19%

Volatility

FMAT vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) has a higher volatility of 6.14% compared to Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) at 4.79%. This indicates that FMAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FBCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FMAT	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.14%	4.79%	+1.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.95%	13.89%	+0.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.66%	18.55%	-0.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.60%	25.79%	-6.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.19%	25.72%	-4.53%

FMAT vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMAT has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than FBCG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMAT vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, more than FBCG's 0.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	0.04%	0.05%	0.12%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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 FBCG in my portfolio?

FMAT and FBCG have a correlation of 0.45, 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 FBCG?

FMAT has higher volatility (6.14%) compared to FBCG (4.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAT dropped -41.11% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, FMAT or FBCG?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 15.84% vs 5.79% for FMAT. On fees, FMAT is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FBCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMAT or FBCG?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 15.84% return vs 5.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMAT or FBCG?

FMAT is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FMAT or FBCG?

FMAT has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FMAT and FBCG?

FMAT is categorized as Materials, while FBCG is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FMAT and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 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.