FMAT vs. VAW
Compare and contrast key facts about Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Vanguard Materials ETF (VAW).
FMAT and VAW 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. VAW is a passively managed fund by Vanguard that tracks the performance of the MSCI US Investable Market Materials 25/50 Index. It was launched on Jan 26, 2004. Both FMAT and VAW 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 VAW.
Key characteristics
| FMAT | VAW | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 12.08% | 12.13% |
| 1Y Return | 26.40% | 26.32% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 4.18% | 4.09% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 12.09% | 12.02% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 8.90% | 8.90% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.93 | 1.92 |
| Sortino Ratio | 2.68 | 2.66 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.34 | 1.34 |
| Calmar Ratio | 2.23 | 2.20 |
| Martin Ratio | 9.37 | 9.42 |
| Ulcer Index | 2.98% | 2.95% |
| Daily Std Dev | 14.43% | 14.46% |
| Max Drawdown | -41.11% | -62.17% |
| Current Drawdown | -2.14% | -2.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between FMAT and VAW is 0.99, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
FMAT vs. VAW - Performance Comparison
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FMAT having a 12.08% return and VAW slightly higher at 12.13%. Over a longer period, both investments have demonstrated similar performance, with their 10-year annualized returns being quite close: FMAT at 8.90% and VAW at 8.90%. 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. VAW - Expense Ratio Comparison
FMAT has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than VAW's 0.10% 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
FMAT vs. VAW - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Vanguard Materials ETF (VAW). 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. VAW - Dividend Comparison
FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.52%, which matches VAW's 1.53% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF | 1.52% | 1.71% | 2.00% | 1.44% | 1.73% | 1.89% | 2.18% | 1.53% | 1.78% | 2.16% | 1.65% | 0.39% |
VAW Vanguard Materials ETF | 1.53% | 1.72% | 1.98% | 1.44% | 1.67% | 1.94% | 2.03% | 1.63% | 1.67% | 2.30% | 1.76% | 1.84% |
Drawdowns
FMAT vs. VAW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FMAT drawdown since its inception was -41.11%, smaller than the maximum VAW drawdown of -62.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAT and VAW. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
FMAT vs. VAW - Volatility Comparison
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and Vanguard Materials ETF (VAW) have volatilities of 3.74% and 3.74%, 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.