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

Performance

FMAT vs. XME - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF (XME). 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 13.39% return, which is significantly lower than XME's 28.28% return. Over the past 10 years, FMAT has underperformed XME with an annualized return of 10.36%, while XME has yielded a comparatively higher 20.61% annualized return.


FMAT

1D
1.33%
1M
1.16%
YTD
13.39%
6M
17.38%
1Y
24.26%
3Y*
12.50%
5Y*
5.92%
10Y*
10.36%

XME

1D
4.21%
1M
12.04%
YTD
28.28%
6M
37.76%
1Y
114.79%
3Y*
41.81%
5Y*
24.52%
10Y*
20.61%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FMAT vs. XME - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FMAT
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF
13.39%12.11%0.47%13.71%-11.54%27.45%19.57%23.35%-17.40%23.51%
XME
SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF
28.28%83.47%-4.54%21.51%13.13%34.92%15.95%14.69%-26.78%21.17%

Correlation

The correlation between FMAT and XME is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.72

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

0.75

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

0.79

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

0.77

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

0.76

The correlation between FMAT and XME has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMAT vs. XME - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FMAT
XME

Basic Materials

90.1%
75.3%

Consumer Cyclical

8.3%

-

Energy

0.6%
23.4%

Healthcare

0.5%

-

Industrials

0.1%
0.4%

Consumer Defensive

0.1%
0.8%

Technology

0.1%
2.2%

Communication Services

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Basic Materials

FMAT
90.1%
XME
75.3%

Consumer Cyclical

FMAT
8.3%
XME

-

Energy

FMAT
0.6%
XME
23.4%

Healthcare

FMAT
0.5%
XME

-

Industrials

FMAT
0.1%
XME
0.4%

Consumer Defensive

FMAT
0.1%
XME
0.8%

Technology

FMAT
0.1%
XME
2.2%

Communication Services

FMAT

-

XME

-

Financial Services

FMAT

-

XME

-

Real Estate

FMAT

-

XME

-

Utilities

FMAT

-

XME

-

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. XME — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMAT
FMAT Risk / Return Rank: 3737
Overall Rank
FMAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FMAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
FMAT Omega Ratio Rank: 3535
Omega Ratio Rank
FMAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 3737
Calmar Ratio Rank
FMAT Martin Ratio Rank: 3838
Martin Ratio Rank

XME
XME Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
XME Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XME Sortino Ratio Rank: 8282
Sortino Ratio Rank
XME Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
XME Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
XME Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
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. XME - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) and SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF (XME). 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.


FMATXMEDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.38

3.35

-1.97

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.97

3.71

-1.73

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.48

-0.25

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.84

5.40

-3.55

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

6.07

13.76

-7.69

FMAT vs. XME - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.38, which is lower than the XME Sharpe Ratio of 3.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMAT and XME, 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


FMATXMEDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.38

3.35

-1.97

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.30

0.76

-0.45

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.49

0.63

-0.14

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.45

0.18

+0.27

Drawdowns

FMAT vs. XME - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMAT drawdown since its inception was -41.11%, smaller than the maximum XME drawdown of -85.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAT and XME.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FMATXMEDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.11%

-85.89%

+44.78%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.48%

-22.60%

+9.12%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.17%

-30.47%

+7.30%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.40%

-37.27%

+11.87%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.11%

-61.69%

+20.58%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.68%

0.00%

-3.68%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.87%

-44.15%

+37.28%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.09%

8.86%

-4.77%

Volatility

FMAT vs. XME - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) is 6.35%, while SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF (XME) has a volatility of 11.95%. This indicates that FMAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XME based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FMATXMEDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.35%

11.95%

-5.60%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.95%

26.54%

-12.59%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.66%

34.59%

-16.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.60%

32.51%

-12.91%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.20%

32.83%

-11.63%

FMAT vs. XME - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMAT has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is lower than XME's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

FMAT vs. XME - Dividend Comparison

FMAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%, more than XME's 0.29% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FMAT
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF
1.41%1.64%1.68%1.71%2.00%1.44%1.73%1.89%2.18%1.53%1.78%2.16%
XME
SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF
0.29%0.38%0.65%1.00%1.64%0.70%0.99%2.43%2.23%1.15%1.02%2.61%

Frequently Asked Questions


FMAT and XME have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XME has higher volatility (11.95%) compared to FMAT (6.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAT dropped -41.11% vs XME's -85.89%.

On 10-year performance, XME leads with 20.61% vs 10.36% for FMAT. On fees, FMAT is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FMAT has been the lower-risk option at 6.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, XME has performed better with a 20.61% return vs 10.36%. 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 0.35% for XME.

FMAT has the higher dividend yield at 1.41%, compared with 0.29% for XME.

FMAT tracks MSCI USA IMI Materials Index, while XME tracks S&P Metals & Mining Select Industry Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FMAT and 0.35% for XME.

XME currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.35 vs 1.38), 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 XME

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