FQAL vs. BIBL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FQAL (Fidelity Quality Factor ETF) and BIBL (Inspire 100 ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - FQAL tracks the Fidelity U.S. Quality Factor Index while BIBL tracks the Inspire 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FQAL returned 11.74%/yr vs 10.30%/yr for BIBL. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FQAL charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for BIBL.

Performance

FQAL vs. BIBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Quality Factor ETF (FQAL) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FQAL achieves a 6.05% return, which is significantly lower than BIBL's 24.57% return.

FQAL

• 1D: -0.86%
• 1M: -0.99%
• YTD: 6.05%
• 6M: 4.85%
• 1Y: 19.02%
• 3Y*: 18.84%
• 5Y*: 11.74%
• 10Y*: —

BIBL

• 1D: -2.18%
• 1M: 4.42%
• YTD: 24.57%
• 6M: 23.10%
• 1Y: 40.13%
• 3Y*: 22.41%
• 5Y*: 10.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

FQAL vs. BIBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FQAL Fidelity Quality Factor ETF	6.05%	16.93%	21.92%	24.20%	-19.70%	32.13%	16.17%	28.12%	-4.39%	5.07%
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	24.57%	17.27%	12.49%	17.87%	-23.26%	27.44%	22.62%	29.68%	-7.64%	4.42%

Correlation

The correlation between FQAL and BIBL is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2017	0.90

The correlation between FQAL and BIBL shifts across timeframes, from 0.77 (1 year) to 0.90 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FQAL vs. BIBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FQAL	BIBL
Technology	37.7%	31.9%
Financial Services	11.6%	8.5%
Communication Services	10.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	0.3%
Industrials	8.8%	27.2%
Healthcare	8.7%	4.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	0.4%
Energy	3.5%	6.0%
Basic Materials	2.1%	4.3%
Real Estate	2.1%	13.7%
Utilities	2.0%	3.3%

Return for Risk

FQAL vs. BIBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FQAL

FQAL Risk / Return Rank: 51
FQAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
FQAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
FQAL Omega Ratio Rank: 49
FQAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
FQAL Martin Ratio Rank: 59

BIBL

BIBL Risk / Return Rank: 82
BIBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
BIBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
BIBL Omega Ratio Rank: 76
BIBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
BIBL Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

FQAL vs. BIBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Quality Factor ETF (FQAL) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). 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.

	FQAL	BIBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	2.45	-0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.36	3.25	-0.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.42	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.27	4.51	-2.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.13	19.18	-9.05

FQAL vs. BIBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FQAL Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is lower than the BIBL Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FQAL and BIBL, 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

FQAL vs. BIBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FQAL drawdown since its inception was -33.71%, smaller than the maximum BIBL drawdown of -36.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FQAL and BIBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FQAL	BIBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.71%	-36.12%	+2.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.43%	-8.94%	+0.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.87%	-20.60%	+3.73%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.50%	-30.85%	+5.35%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.19%	-2.18%	-0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.57%	-7.00%	+2.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.88%	2.10%	-0.22%

Volatility

FQAL vs. BIBL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Quality Factor ETF (FQAL) is 3.75%, while Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL) has a volatility of 6.91%. This indicates that FQAL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BIBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FQAL	BIBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.75%	6.91%	-3.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.06%	13.67%	-4.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.54%	16.47%	-4.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.23%	19.76%	-3.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.57%	21.11%	-3.54%

FQAL vs. BIBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FQAL has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than BIBL's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

FQAL vs. BIBL - Dividend Comparison

FQAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.19%, more than BIBL's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	0.95%	1.01%	0.92%	1.02%	0.98%	17.87%	1.67%	1.30%	1.49%	0.31%	0.00%
FQAL Fidelity Quality Factor ETF	1.19%	1.12%	1.20%	1.35%	1.52%	1.17%	1.46%	1.55%	1.73%	1.53%	0.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FQAL and BIBL in my portfolio?

FQAL and BIBL have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FQAL or BIBL?

BIBL has higher volatility (6.91%) compared to FQAL (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FQAL dropped -33.71% vs BIBL's -36.12%.

Which ETF is better, FQAL or BIBL?

On 5-year performance, FQAL leads with 11.74% vs 10.30% for BIBL. On fees, FQAL is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, FQAL has been the lower-risk option at 3.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FQAL or BIBL?

Over the 5-year period, FQAL has performed better with a 11.74% return vs 10.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FQAL or BIBL?

FQAL is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for BIBL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FQAL or BIBL?

FQAL has the higher dividend yield at 1.19%, compared with 0.95% for BIBL.

What is the main difference between FQAL and BIBL?

FQAL tracks Fidelity U.S. Quality Factor Index, while BIBL tracks Inspire 100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Inspire. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for FQAL and 0.35% for BIBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.45 vs 1.66), 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.