PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FMAT vs. FXZ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FMAT vs. FXZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and First Trust Materials AlphaDEX Fund (FXZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FMAT achieves a 13.04% return, which is significantly lower than FXZ's 29.62% return. Over the past 10 years, FMAT has underperformed FXZ with an annualized return of 10.33%, while FXZ has yielded a comparatively higher 11.67% annualized 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%

FXZ

1D
-0.40%
1M
5.70%
YTD
29.62%
6M
33.34%
1Y
53.31%
3Y*
13.07%
5Y*
7.84%
10Y*
11.67%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FMAT vs. FXZ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
FXZ
First Trust Materials AlphaDEX Fund
29.62%16.25%-16.31%16.27%-0.92%30.84%22.52%21.52%-22.62%23.72%

Correlation

The correlation between FMAT and FXZ is 0.94, 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

0.94

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.92

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.93

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.93

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2013

0.94

The correlation between FMAT and FXZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMAT vs. FXZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FMAT
FXZ

Basic Materials

90.1%
75.7%

Consumer Cyclical

8.3%
3.9%

Energy

0.6%

-

Healthcare

0.5%

-

Industrials

0.1%
20.4%

Consumer Defensive

0.1%

-

Technology

0.1%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Basic Materials

FMAT
90.1%
FXZ
75.7%

Consumer Cyclical

FMAT
8.3%
FXZ
3.9%

Energy

FMAT
0.6%
FXZ

-

Healthcare

FMAT
0.5%
FXZ

-

Industrials

FMAT
0.1%
FXZ
20.4%

Consumer Defensive

FMAT
0.1%
FXZ

-

Technology

FMAT
0.1%
FXZ

-

Communication Services

FMAT

-

FXZ

-

Financial Services

FMAT

-

FXZ

-

Real Estate

FMAT

-

FXZ

-

Utilities

FMAT

-

FXZ

-

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. FXZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMAT
FMAT Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
FMAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FMAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
FMAT Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
FMAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
FMAT Martin Ratio Rank: 3535
Martin Ratio Rank

FXZ
FXZ Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
FXZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FXZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
FXZ Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
FXZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
FXZ Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
Martin Ratio Rank
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. FXZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and First Trust Materials AlphaDEX Fund (FXZ). 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.


FMATFXZDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.17

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.36

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.40

-0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.68

4.20

-2.52

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.51

15.80

-10.29

FMAT vs. FXZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.28, which is lower than the FXZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMAT and FXZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FMATFXZDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.28

2.45

-1.17

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.30

0.33

-0.03

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.49

0.47

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.45

0.35

+0.10

Drawdowns

FMAT vs. FXZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMAT drawdown since its inception was -41.11%, smaller than the maximum FXZ drawdown of -65.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAT and FXZ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FMATFXZDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.11%

-65.46%

+24.35%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.48%

-12.75%

-0.73%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.17%

-33.99%

+10.82%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.40%

-33.99%

+8.59%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.11%

-49.41%

+8.30%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.97%

-0.40%

-3.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.87%

-11.36%

+4.49%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.09%

3.38%

+0.71%

Volatility

FMAT vs. FXZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) is 6.14%, while First Trust Materials AlphaDEX Fund (FXZ) has a volatility of 7.04%. This indicates that FMAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FXZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FMATFXZDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.14%

7.04%

-0.90%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.95%

16.40%

-2.45%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.66%

21.87%

-4.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.60%

24.13%

-4.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.19%

24.87%

-3.68%

FMAT vs. FXZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMAT has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than FXZ's 0.67% expense ratio.


Dividends

FMAT vs. FXZ - Dividend Comparison

FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, more than FXZ's 1.38% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
FXZ
First Trust Materials AlphaDEX Fund
1.38%1.74%1.81%1.97%1.56%1.11%1.51%1.58%1.38%1.01%1.19%1.26%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.94, FMAT and FXZ 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.

FXZ has higher volatility (7.04%) compared to FMAT (6.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAT dropped -41.11% vs FXZ's -65.46%.

On 10-year performance, FXZ leads with 11.67% vs 10.33% for FMAT. On fees, FMAT is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FMAT has been the lower-risk option at 6.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FXZ has performed better with a 11.67% return vs 10.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FMAT is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.67% for FXZ.

FMAT has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 1.38% for FXZ.

FMAT tracks MSCI USA IMI Materials Index, while FXZ tracks StrataQuant Materials Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FMAT and 0.67% for FXZ.

FXZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.45 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FMAT and FXZ

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