FMET vs. MUSQ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FMET (Fidelity Metaverse ETF) and MUSQ (MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF) are both Communications Equities funds. FMET is actively managed, while MUSQ is passively managed. Over the past year, FMET returned 12.21% vs -11.97% for MUSQ. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FMET charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.76%/yr for MUSQ.

Performance

FMET vs. MUSQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) and MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FMET achieves a 1.20% return, which is significantly higher than MUSQ's -13.09% return.

FMET

• 1D: -2.14%
• 1M: -5.16%
• YTD: 1.20%
• 6M: 0.69%
• 1Y: 12.21%
• 3Y*: 13.64%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MUSQ

• 1D: -1.40%
• 1M: -7.39%
• YTD: -13.09%
• 6M: -12.45%
• 1Y: -11.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FMET vs. MUSQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	1.20%	21.93%	6.76%	11.94%
MUSQ MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF	-13.09%	19.60%	-4.94%	0.81%

Correlation

The correlation between FMET and MUSQ is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 7, 2023	0.71

The correlation between FMET and MUSQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMET vs. MUSQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMET	MUSQ
Technology	69.6%	10.8%
Communication Services	22.4%	76.5%
Real Estate	7.8%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	0.6%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FMET vs. MUSQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMET

FMET Risk / Return Rank: 17
FMET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
FMET Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
FMET Omega Ratio Rank: 18
FMET Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
FMET Martin Ratio Rank: 15

MUSQ

MUSQ Risk / Return Rank: 4
MUSQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
MUSQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
MUSQ Omega Ratio Rank: 4
MUSQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
MUSQ Martin Ratio Rank: 3

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.

FMET vs. MUSQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) and MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ). 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.

	FMET	MUSQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	-0.69	+1.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.92	-0.89	+1.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	0.90	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.53	-0.52	+1.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.39	-1.18	+2.58

FMET vs. MUSQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMET Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is higher than the MUSQ Sharpe Ratio of -0.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMET and MUSQ, 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

FMET vs. MUSQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMET drawdown since its inception was -29.94%, which is greater than MUSQ's maximum drawdown of -23.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMET and MUSQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMET	MUSQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.94%	-23.11%	-6.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.00%	-23.11%	+0.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.21%	-18.92%	+9.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.71%	-6.75%	-0.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.79%	10.15%	-1.36%

Volatility

FMET vs. MUSQ - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) has a higher volatility of 9.84% compared to MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ) at 6.06%. This indicates that FMET's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MUSQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FMET	MUSQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.84%	6.06%	+3.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.02%	13.98%	+3.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.96%	17.33%	+3.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.46%	17.96%	+6.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.46%	17.96%	+6.50%

FMET vs. MUSQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMET has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than MUSQ's 0.76% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMET vs. MUSQ - Dividend Comparison

FMET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, less than MUSQ's 0.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	0.52%	0.81%	0.44%	0.40%	0.18%
MUSQ MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF	0.73%	0.63%	1.08%	0.74%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMET and MUSQ in my portfolio?

FMET and MUSQ have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FMET or MUSQ?

FMET has higher volatility (9.84%) compared to MUSQ (6.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMET dropped -29.94% vs MUSQ's -23.11%.

Which ETF is better, FMET or MUSQ?

On 1-year performance, FMET leads with 12.21% vs -11.97% for MUSQ. On fees, FMET is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, MUSQ has been the lower-risk option at 6.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMET or MUSQ?

Over the 1-year period, FMET has performed better with a 12.21% return vs -11.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMET or MUSQ?

FMET is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.76% for MUSQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FMET or MUSQ?

MUSQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.73%, compared with 0.52% for FMET.

What is the main difference between FMET and MUSQ?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Exchange Traded Concepts. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for FMET and 0.76% for MUSQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FMET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.59 vs -0.69), 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.