FMET vs. RSPC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

FMET (Fidelity Metaverse ETF) and RSPC (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF) are both Communications Equities funds. FMET is actively managed, while RSPC is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FMET returned 11.40%/yr vs 8.82%/yr for RSPC. Their 0.63 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FMET charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for RSPC.

Performance

FMET vs. RSPC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF (RSPC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FMET achieves a 3.07% return, which is significantly higher than RSPC's -10.27% return.

FMET

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: 0.62%
• 6M: 4.91%
• YTD: 3.07%
• 1Y: 7.40%
• 3Y*: 11.40%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.30%

RSPC

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: -1.81%
• 6M: -8.40%
• YTD: -10.27%
• 1Y: -2.47%
• 3Y*: 8.82%
• 5Y*: -0.41%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.11%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	$106.31K	$94.10K	$143.93K
RSPC Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF	$480.30K	$640.18K	$573.12K

FMET vs. RSPC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	3.07%	21.93%	6.76%	39.18%	-18.57%
RSPC Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF	-10.27%	18.44%	17.98%	17.92%	-23.40%

Correlation

The correlation between FMET and RSPC is 0.40, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 21, 2022	0.63

Over the past year, the correlation between FMET and RSPC has dropped to 0.40 - well below their long-term average of 0.63, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FMET vs. RSPC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMET	RSPC
Technology	52.1%	14.3%
Communication Services	39.6%	85.6%
Real Estate	8.3%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	0.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FMET vs. RSPC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FMET

FMET Risk / Return Rank: 16
FMET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
FMET Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FMET Omega Ratio Rank: 16
FMET Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
FMET Martin Ratio Rank: 15

RSPC

RSPC Risk / Return Rank: 8
RSPC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
RSPC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
RSPC Omega Ratio Rank: 7
RSPC Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
RSPC Martin Ratio Rank: 8

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FMET vs. RSPC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF (RSPC). 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	RSPC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.27	-0.23	+0.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.51	-0.22	+0.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	0.97	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.25	-0.22	+0.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.62	-0.47	+1.09

FMET vs. RSPC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMET Sharpe Ratio is 0.27, which is higher than the RSPC Sharpe Ratio of -0.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMET and RSPC, 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. RSPC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMET drawdown since its inception was -29.94%, smaller than the maximum RSPC drawdown of -38.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMET and RSPC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMET	RSPC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.94%	-38.03%	+8.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.00%	-15.61%	-7.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.02%	-15.61%	-9.41%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-37.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.53%	-13.04%	+5.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.71%	-12.69%	+4.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.17%	7.14%	+2.03%

Volatility

FMET vs. RSPC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) is 4.88%, while Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF (RSPC) has a volatility of 5.56%. This indicates that FMET experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RSPC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FMET	RSPC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.88%	5.56%	-0.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.48%	11.12%	+6.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.32%	14.65%	+6.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.30%	18.71%	+5.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.30%	20.71%	+3.59%

FMET vs. RSPC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMET has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than RSPC's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMET vs. RSPC - Dividend Comparison

FMET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.51%, less than RSPC's 1.83% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	0.51%	0.81%	0.44%	0.40%	0.18%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RSPC Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF	1.83%	1.66%	1.03%	0.98%	1.45%	1.10%	1.05%	0.90%	0.24%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMET and RSPC in my portfolio?

FMET and RSPC have a correlation of 0.40, 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 RSPC?

RSPC has higher volatility (5.56%) compared to FMET (4.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMET dropped -29.94% vs RSPC's -38.03%.

Which ETF is better, FMET or RSPC?

On 3-year performance, FMET leads with 11.40% vs 8.82% for RSPC. On fees, FMET is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FMET has been the lower-risk option at 4.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMET or RSPC?

Over the 3-year period, FMET has performed better with a 11.40% return vs 8.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMET or RSPC?

FMET is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for RSPC.

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

RSPC has the higher dividend yield at 1.83%, compared with 0.51% for FMET.

What is the main difference between FMET and RSPC?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for FMET and 0.40% for RSPC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FMET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.27 vs -0.23), 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.