FMAT vs. RSPM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FMAT (Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF) and RSPM (Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF) are both Materials funds - FMAT tracks the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index while RSPM tracks the S&P 500 Equal Weight Materials Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FMAT returned 10.33%/yr vs 10.67%/yr for RSPM. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FMAT charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for RSPM.

Performance

FMAT vs. RSPM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF (RSPM). 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 RSPM's 15.78% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with FMAT having a 10.33% annualized return and RSPM not far ahead at 10.67%.

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%

RSPM

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 1.21%
• YTD: 15.78%
• 6M: 18.94%
• 1Y: 23.99%
• 3Y*: 10.35%
• 5Y*: 4.29%
• 10Y*: 10.67%

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

FMAT vs. RSPM - 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%
RSPM Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF	15.78%	6.90%	-1.30%	8.32%	-9.95%	31.21%	22.77%	25.11%	-14.75%	25.87%

Correlation

The correlation between FMAT and RSPM is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2013	0.95

The correlation between FMAT and RSPM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMAT vs. RSPM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMAT	RSPM
Basic Materials	90.1%	79.4%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	20.6%
Energy	0.6%	-
Healthcare	0.5%	-
Industrials	0.1%	3.5%
Consumer Defensive	0.1%	-
Technology	0.1%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FMAT vs. RSPM — 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

RSPM

RSPM Risk / Return Rank: 37
RSPM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
RSPM Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
RSPM Omega Ratio Rank: 34
RSPM Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
RSPM Martin Ratio Rank: 35

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. RSPM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF (RSPM). 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	RSPM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.28	1.33	-0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.85	1.98	-0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.23	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	1.96	-0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.51	5.36	+0.16
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. RSPM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.28, which is comparable to the RSPM Sharpe Ratio of 1.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMAT and RSPM, 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	RSPM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.28	1.33	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30	0.21	+0.08
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.49	0.49	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.39	+0.05

Drawdowns

FMAT vs. RSPM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMAT drawdown since its inception was -41.11%, smaller than the maximum RSPM drawdown of -61.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAT and RSPM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMAT	RSPM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.11%	-61.18%	+20.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.48%	-12.32%	-1.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.17%	-27.19%	+4.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.40%	-27.19%	+1.79%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.11%	-39.84%	-1.27%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.97%	-4.13%	+0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.87%	-8.79%	+1.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.09%	4.49%	-0.40%

Volatility

FMAT vs. RSPM - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) has a higher volatility of 6.14% compared to Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF (RSPM) at 5.82%. This indicates that FMAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RSPM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FMAT	RSPM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.14%	5.82%	+0.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.95%	13.40%	+0.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.66%	18.15%	-0.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.60%	20.12%	-0.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.19%	21.93%	-0.74%

FMAT vs. RSPM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMAT has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than RSPM's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMAT vs. RSPM - Dividend Comparison

FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, less than RSPM's 1.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
RSPM Invesco S&P 500® Equal Weight Materials ETF	1.50%	2.06%	2.04%	2.05%	2.19%	1.43%	1.57%	1.81%	1.83%	1.50%	1.28%	1.57%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMAT and RSPM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, FMAT and RSPM 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.

Which is riskier, FMAT or RSPM?

FMAT has higher volatility (6.14%) compared to RSPM (5.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAT dropped -41.11% vs RSPM's -61.18%.

Which ETF is better, FMAT or RSPM?

On 10-year performance, RSPM leads with 10.67% vs 10.33% for FMAT. On fees, FMAT is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, RSPM has been the lower-risk option at 5.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMAT or RSPM?

Over the 10-year period, RSPM has performed better with a 10.67% return vs 10.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMAT or RSPM?

FMAT is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for RSPM.

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

RSPM has the higher dividend yield at 1.50%, compared with 1.42% for FMAT.

What is the main difference between FMAT and RSPM?

FMAT tracks MSCI USA IMI Materials Index, while RSPM tracks S&P 500 Equal Weight Materials Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FMAT and 0.40% for RSPM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RSPM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.33 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.