FZAMX vs. LLSCX

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FZAMX (Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z) and LLSCX (Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, FZAMX returned 12.86%/yr vs 5.72%/yr for LLSCX. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FZAMX charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for LLSCX.

Performance

FZAMX vs. LLSCX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z (FZAMX) and Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund (LLSCX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FZAMX achieves a 25.16% return, which is significantly higher than LLSCX's -6.53% return. Over the past 10 years, FZAMX has outperformed LLSCX with an annualized return of 12.86%, while LLSCX has yielded a comparatively lower 5.72% annualized return.

FZAMX

• 1D: 1.39%
• 1M: 6.05%
• YTD: 25.16%
• 6M: 22.19%
• 1Y: 42.92%
• 3Y*: 21.22%
• 5Y*: 12.67%
• 10Y*: 12.86%

LLSCX

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: -6.53%
• 6M: -6.85%
• 1Y: -3.18%
• 3Y*: 6.81%
• 5Y*: 1.11%
• 10Y*: 5.72%

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

FZAMX vs. LLSCX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FZAMX Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z	25.16%	12.00%	17.39%	15.15%	-14.70%	25.40%	18.84%	23.85%	-14.85%	20.78%
LLSCX Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund	-6.53%	7.56%	9.69%	20.17%	-19.25%	11.18%	4.17%	27.74%	-6.52%	9.07%

Correlation

The correlation between FZAMX and LLSCX is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 20, 2013	0.79

Over the past year, the correlation between FZAMX and LLSCX has dropped to 0.58 - well below their long-term average of 0.79, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

FZAMX vs. LLSCX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FZAMX

FZAMX Risk / Return Rank: 82
FZAMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
FZAMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
FZAMX Omega Ratio Rank: 70
FZAMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
FZAMX Martin Ratio Rank: 92

LLSCX

LLSCX Risk / Return Rank: 2
LLSCX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
LLSCX Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
LLSCX Omega Ratio Rank: 2
LLSCX Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
LLSCX Martin Ratio Rank: 2

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.

FZAMX vs. LLSCX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z (FZAMX) and Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund (LLSCX). 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.

	FZAMX	LLSCX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.44	-0.20	+2.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.28	-0.19	+3.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	0.98	+0.45
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.41	-0.23	+4.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.63	-0.53	+18.16

FZAMX vs. LLSCX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FZAMX Sharpe Ratio is 2.44, which is higher than the LLSCX Sharpe Ratio of -0.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FZAMX and LLSCX, 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

FZAMX vs. LLSCX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FZAMX drawdown since its inception was -42.32%, smaller than the maximum LLSCX drawdown of -63.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FZAMX and LLSCX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FZAMX	LLSCX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.32%	-63.97%	+21.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.77%	-11.30%	+1.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.24%	-15.40%	-9.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.24%	-26.67%	+1.43%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.32%	-42.23%	-0.09%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.16%	-10.65%	+10.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.06%	-8.90%	+2.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.44%	4.95%	-2.51%

Volatility

FZAMX vs. LLSCX - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z (FZAMX) has a higher volatility of 5.81% compared to Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund (LLSCX) at 4.02%. This indicates that FZAMX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LLSCX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FZAMX	LLSCX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.81%	4.02%	+1.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.22%	8.99%	+5.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.67%	13.11%	+4.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.30%	16.98%	+3.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.98%	24.59%	-3.61%

FZAMX vs. LLSCX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FZAMX has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than LLSCX's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FZAMX vs. LLSCX - Dividend Comparison

FZAMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.63%, more than LLSCX's 1.26% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FZAMX Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z	5.63%	10.09%	6.93%	2.83%	5.86%	18.58%	1.41%	3.50%	10.72%	7.81%	5.00%	4.90%
LLSCX Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund	1.26%	1.17%	0.11%	0.94%	1.20%	0.82%	5.85%	14.89%	18.13%	8.43%	18.01%	5.91%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FZAMX and LLSCX in my portfolio?

FZAMX and LLSCX have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FZAMX or LLSCX?

FZAMX has higher volatility (5.81%) compared to LLSCX (4.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FZAMX dropped -42.32% vs LLSCX's -63.97%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FZAMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.44 vs -0.20), 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.