FMAT vs. GLTR
Compare and contrast key facts about Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR).
FMAT and GLTR are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FMAT is a passively managed fund by Fidelity that tracks the performance of the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. It was launched on Oct 21, 2013. GLTR is a passively managed fund by Abrdn Plc that tracks the performance of the ETFS Physical Precious Metals Basket Index. It was launched on Oct 22, 2010. Both FMAT and GLTR are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: FMAT or GLTR.
Key characteristics
| FMAT | GLTR | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 4.53% | 14.58% |
| 1Y Return | 6.56% | 15.48% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 5.42% | 2.92% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 10.93% | 8.49% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 7.91% | 3.84% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.59 | 0.96 |
| Daily Std Dev | 14.38% | 17.03% |
| Max Drawdown | -41.11% | -55.70% |
| Current Drawdown | -3.28% | -10.55% |
Correlation
The correlation between FMAT and GLTR is 0.21, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Performance
FMAT vs. GLTR - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, FMAT achieves a 4.53% return, which is significantly lower than GLTR's 14.58% return. Over the past 10 years, FMAT has outperformed GLTR with an annualized return of 7.91%, while GLTR has yielded a comparatively lower 3.84% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
FMAT vs. GLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison
FMAT has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than GLTR's 0.60% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
FMAT vs. GLTR - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR). 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.
Dividends
FMAT vs. GLTR - Dividend Comparison
FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, while GLTR has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF | 1.61% | 1.71% | 2.00% | 1.44% | 1.73% | 1.89% | 2.18% | 1.53% | 1.78% | 2.16% | 1.65% | 0.39% |
GLTR Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
FMAT vs. GLTR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FMAT drawdown since its inception was -41.11%, smaller than the maximum GLTR drawdown of -55.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAT and GLTR. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
FMAT vs. GLTR - Volatility Comparison
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Aberdeen Standard Physical Precious Metals Basket Shares ETF (GLTR) have volatilities of 4.83% and 4.96%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.