FMAT vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FMAT (Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FMAT is a Materials fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FMAT returned 24.48% vs 4.01% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. FMAT charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

FMAT vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FMAT achieves a 13.14% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.37% return.

FMAT

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 2.69%
• YTD: 13.14%
• 6M: 11.75%
• 1Y: 24.48%
• 3Y*: 11.90%
• 5Y*: 7.20%
• 10Y*: 10.65%

RBIL

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: -0.15%
• YTD: 2.37%
• 6M: 2.42%
• 1Y: 4.01%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FMAT vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	13.14%	8.07%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.37%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between FMAT and RBIL is -0.17, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025	-0.15

Return for Risk

FMAT vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMAT

FMAT Risk / Return Rank: 37
FMAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
FMAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
FMAT Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FMAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
FMAT Martin Ratio Rank: 38

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.34	4.36	-3.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.93	6.72	-4.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	2.13	-0.90
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.82	7.95	-6.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.81	48.27	-42.46

FMAT vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.34, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMAT and RBIL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FMAT vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMAT drawdown since its inception was -41.11%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAT and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMAT	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.11%	-0.52%	-40.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.48%	-0.52%	-12.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.17%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.40%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.11%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.89%	-0.46%	-3.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.87%	-0.07%	-6.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.23%	0.09%	+4.14%

Volatility

FMAT vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) has a higher volatility of 6.38% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that FMAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FMAT	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.38%	0.36%	+6.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.72%	0.85%	+13.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.42%	0.95%	+17.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.68%	1.07%	+18.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.26%	1.07%	+20.19%

FMAT vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMAT has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio. Despite the difference, 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. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.40%, less than RBIL's 4.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	1.40%	1.64%	1.68%	1.71%	2.00%	1.44%	1.73%	1.89%	2.18%	1.53%	1.78%	2.16%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.38%	3.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMAT and RBIL in my portfolio?

FMAT and RBIL have a correlation of -0.17, 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 RBIL?

FMAT has higher volatility (6.38%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAT dropped -41.11% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, FMAT or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, FMAT leads with 24.48% vs 4.01% for RBIL. On fees, FMAT is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMAT or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, FMAT has performed better with a 24.48% return vs 4.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMAT or RBIL?

FMAT is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.17% for RBIL.

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

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 1.40% for FMAT.

What is the main difference between FMAT and RBIL?

FMAT is categorized as Materials, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. FMAT tracks MSCI USA IMI Materials Index, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FMAT and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.36 vs 1.34), 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.