FMET vs. ONEQ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FMET (Fidelity Metaverse ETF) and ONEQ (Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FMET is a Communications Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while ONEQ is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Composite Index. FMET is actively managed, while ONEQ is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FMET returned 13.64%/yr vs 24.80%/yr for ONEQ. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FMET charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.21%/yr for ONEQ.

Performance

FMET vs. ONEQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ). 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 lower than ONEQ's 10.75% return.

FMET

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

ONEQ

• 1D: -2.25%
• 1M: -2.78%
• YTD: 10.75%
• 6M: 9.24%
• 1Y: 31.59%
• 3Y*: 24.80%
• 5Y*: 13.39%
• 10Y*: 19.63%

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

FMET vs. ONEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	1.20%	21.93%	6.76%	39.18%	-18.57%
ONEQ Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF	10.75%	20.89%	29.30%	45.73%	-21.42%

Correlation

The correlation between FMET and ONEQ is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 21, 2022	0.87

The correlation between FMET and ONEQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMET vs. ONEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMET	ONEQ
Technology	69.6%	54.3%
Communication Services	22.4%	15.4%
Real Estate	7.8%	0.6%
Basic Materials	-	0.9%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.7%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.4%
Energy	-	0.5%
Financial Services	-	2.9%
Healthcare	-	4.7%
Industrials	-	2.9%
Utilities	-	0.8%

Return for Risk

FMET vs. ONEQ — 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

ONEQ

ONEQ Risk / Return Rank: 54
ONEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
ONEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
ONEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 53
ONEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
ONEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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. ONEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) and Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ). 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	ONEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	1.83	-1.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.92	2.44	-1.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.32	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.53	2.51	-1.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.39	9.53	-8.14

FMET vs. ONEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMET Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is lower than the ONEQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMET and ONEQ, 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. ONEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMET drawdown since its inception was -29.94%, smaller than the maximum ONEQ drawdown of -55.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMET and ONEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMET	ONEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.94%	-55.09%	+25.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.00%	-12.64%	-10.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.02%	-24.09%	-0.93%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.23%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.23%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.21%	-5.46%	-3.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.71%	-7.94%	+0.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.79%	3.32%	+5.47%

Volatility

FMET vs. ONEQ - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) has a higher volatility of 9.84% compared to Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ) at 7.59%. This indicates that FMET's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ONEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FMET	ONEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.84%	7.59%	+2.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.02%	13.69%	+3.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.96%	17.41%	+3.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.46%	22.36%	+2.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.46%	21.79%	+2.67%

FMET vs. ONEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMET has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than ONEQ's 0.21% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMET vs. ONEQ - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	0.52%	0.81%	0.44%	0.40%	0.18%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ONEQ Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF	0.73%	0.54%	0.65%	0.71%	0.97%	0.54%	0.71%	2.51%	1.08%	0.84%	1.12%	1.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMET and ONEQ in my portfolio?

FMET and ONEQ have a correlation of 0.87, 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 ONEQ?

FMET has higher volatility (9.84%) compared to ONEQ (7.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMET dropped -29.94% vs ONEQ's -55.09%.

Which ETF is better, FMET or ONEQ?

On 3-year performance, ONEQ leads with 24.80% vs 13.64% for FMET. On fees, ONEQ is cheaper at 0.21% per year. On volatility, ONEQ has been the lower-risk option at 7.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMET or ONEQ?

Over the 3-year period, ONEQ has performed better with a 24.80% return vs 13.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMET or ONEQ?

ONEQ is cheaper with a 0.21% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for FMET.

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

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

What is the main difference between FMET and ONEQ?

FMET is categorized as Communications Equities, while ONEQ is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for FMET and 0.21% for ONEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ONEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs 0.59), 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.