FMIL vs. FLRG

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

FMIL (Fidelity New Millennium ETF) and FLRG (Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FMIL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while FLRG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Fidelity U.S. Multifactor Index. FMIL is actively managed, while FLRG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FMIL returned 17.27%/yr vs 12.91%/yr for FLRG. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FMIL charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for FLRG.

Performance

FMIL vs. FLRG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity New Millennium ETF (FMIL) and Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF (FLRG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FMIL achieves a 11.82% return, which is significantly higher than FLRG's 7.80% return.

FMIL

• 1D: 1.29%
• 1M: 2.38%
• YTD: 11.82%
• 6M: 12.47%
• 1Y: 28.51%
• 3Y*: 22.73%
• 5Y*: 17.27%
• 10Y*: —

FLRG

• 1D: 0.46%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 7.80%
• 6M: 7.07%
• 1Y: 18.54%
• 3Y*: 18.04%
• 5Y*: 12.91%
• 10Y*: —

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

FMIL vs. FLRG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FMIL Fidelity New Millennium ETF	11.82%	17.67%	27.89%	25.07%	-0.04%	24.53%	16.21%
FLRG Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF	7.80%	13.92%	23.36%	18.31%	-10.98%	29.36%	9.90%

Correlation

The correlation between FMIL and FLRG is 0.89, 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	0.89
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2020	0.86

The correlation between FMIL and FLRG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMIL vs. FLRG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMIL	FLRG
Technology	32.5%	38.8%
Financial Services	11.6%	11.4%
Industrials	11.5%	7.3%
Communication Services	10.9%	9.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.7%	9.5%
Healthcare	8.1%	9.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	4.5%
Energy	4.4%	4.3%
Utilities	2.6%	1.0%
Basic Materials	1.7%	2.3%
Real Estate	1.1%	2.0%

Return for Risk

FMIL vs. FLRG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMIL

FMIL Risk / Return Rank: 66
FMIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
FMIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
FMIL Omega Ratio Rank: 67
FMIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
FMIL Martin Ratio Rank: 72

FLRG

FLRG Risk / Return Rank: 55
FLRG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
FLRG Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
FLRG Omega Ratio Rank: 53
FLRG Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
FLRG Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

FMIL vs. FLRG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity New Millennium ETF (FMIL) and Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF (FLRG). 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.

	FMIL	FLRG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	1.77	+0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.86	2.49	+0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.32	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	2.60	+0.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.65	9.98	+2.66

FMIL vs. FLRG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMIL Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is comparable to the FLRG Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMIL and FLRG, 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

FMIL vs. FLRG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMIL drawdown since its inception was -19.72%, roughly equal to the maximum FLRG drawdown of -19.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMIL and FLRG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMIL	FLRG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.72%	-19.64%	-0.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.98%	-7.16%	-2.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.72%	-16.53%	-3.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.72%	-19.64%	-0.08%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.58%	+1.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.98%	-3.73%	+0.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	1.86%	+0.37%

Volatility

FMIL vs. FLRG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity New Millennium ETF (FMIL) has a higher volatility of 5.01% compared to Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF (FLRG) at 3.76%. This indicates that FMIL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLRG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FMIL	FLRG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.01%	3.76%	+1.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.65%	8.26%	+2.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.42%	10.52%	+2.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.99%	15.24%	+1.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.68%	15.02%	+2.66%

FMIL vs. FLRG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMIL has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than FLRG's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMIL vs. FLRG - Dividend Comparison

FMIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, less than FLRG's 1.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FLRG Fidelity U.S. Multifactor ETF	1.40%	1.42%	1.42%	1.39%	1.62%	1.36%	1.47%
FMIL Fidelity New Millennium ETF	0.98%	1.10%	0.82%	0.57%	1.67%	1.68%	0.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMIL and FLRG in my portfolio?

FMIL and FLRG have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FMIL or FLRG?

FMIL has higher volatility (5.01%) compared to FLRG (3.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMIL dropped -19.72% vs FLRG's -19.64%.

Which ETF is better, FMIL or FLRG?

On 5-year performance, FMIL leads with 17.27% vs 12.91% for FLRG. On fees, FLRG is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, FLRG has been the lower-risk option at 3.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMIL or FLRG?

Over the 5-year period, FMIL has performed better with a 17.27% return vs 12.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMIL or FLRG?

FLRG is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FMIL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FMIL or FLRG?

FLRG has the higher dividend yield at 1.40%, compared with 0.98% for FMIL.

What is the main difference between FMIL and FLRG?

FMIL is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while FLRG is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FMIL and 0.29% for FLRG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FMIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 1.77), 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.