GNR vs. FMAT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GNR (SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF) and FMAT (Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GNR is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Natural Resources Index, while FMAT is a Materials fund tracking the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GNR returned 10.91%/yr vs 10.33%/yr for FMAT. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GNR charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FMAT.

Performance

GNR vs. FMAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) and Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GNR achieves a 20.27% return, which is significantly higher than FMAT's 13.04% return. Over the past 10 years, GNR has outperformed FMAT with an annualized return of 10.91%, while FMAT has yielded a comparatively lower 10.33% annualized return.

GNR

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: 1.20%
• YTD: 20.27%
• 6M: 23.12%
• 1Y: 43.10%
• 3Y*: 15.55%
• 5Y*: 9.73%
• 10Y*: 10.91%

FMAT

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: 2.43%
• YTD: 13.04%
• 6M: 16.00%
• 1Y: 22.50%
• 3Y*: 12.38%
• 5Y*: 5.79%
• 10Y*: 10.33%

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

GNR vs. FMAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	20.27%	28.68%	-8.27%	2.95%	10.20%	24.73%	-0.03%	16.49%	-13.19%	22.64%
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	13.04%	12.11%	0.47%	13.71%	-11.54%	27.45%	19.57%	23.35%	-17.40%	23.51%

Correlation

The correlation between GNR and FMAT is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2013	0.79

The correlation between GNR and FMAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

GNR vs. FMAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GNR	FMAT
Basic Materials	50.3%	90.1%
Energy	37.6%	0.6%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	8.3%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	0.1%
Real Estate	0.8%	-
Industrials	0.2%	0.1%
Financial Services	0.0%	-
Healthcare	0.0%	0.5%
Utilities	0.0%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Technology	-	0.1%

Return for Risk

GNR vs. FMAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

GNR

GNR Risk / Return Rank: 82
GNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
GNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
GNR Omega Ratio Rank: 76
GNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
GNR Martin Ratio Rank: 90

FMAT

FMAT Risk / Return Rank: 34
FMAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
FMAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
FMAT Omega Ratio Rank: 32
FMAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
FMAT Martin Ratio Rank: 35

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.

GNR vs. FMAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) and Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT). 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.

	GNR	FMAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.64	1.28	+1.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.38	1.85	+1.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.22	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.43	1.68	+3.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.28	5.51	+15.77
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GNR vs. FMAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GNR Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is higher than the FMAT Sharpe Ratio of 1.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GNR and FMAT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GNR	FMAT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.64	1.28	+1.36
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.48	0.30	+0.19
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.50	0.49	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.26	0.45	-0.18

Drawdowns

GNR vs. FMAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GNR drawdown since its inception was -51.37%, which is greater than FMAT's maximum drawdown of -41.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GNR and FMAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	GNR	FMAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.37%	-41.11%	-10.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.97%	-13.48%	+5.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.15%	-23.17%	+2.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.66%	-25.40%	-0.26%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-48.59%	-41.11%	-7.48%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.51%	-3.97%	+2.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.95%	-6.87%	-8.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.03%	4.09%	-2.06%

Volatility

GNR vs. FMAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) is 4.53%, while Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) has a volatility of 6.14%. This indicates that GNR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FMAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GNR	FMAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.53%	6.14%	-1.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.23%	13.95%	-0.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.39%	17.66%	-1.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.23%	19.60%	+0.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.88%	21.19%	+0.69%

GNR vs. FMAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

GNR has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than FMAT's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

GNR vs. FMAT - Dividend Comparison

GNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.47%, more than FMAT's 1.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	1.42%	1.64%	1.68%	1.71%	2.00%	1.44%	1.73%	1.89%	2.18%	1.53%	1.78%	2.16%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	2.47%	2.76%	4.73%	3.37%	4.37%	3.44%	2.78%	3.84%	3.51%	2.40%	2.06%	4.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GNR and FMAT in my portfolio?

GNR and FMAT have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GNR or FMAT?

FMAT has higher volatility (6.14%) compared to GNR (4.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GNR dropped -51.37% vs FMAT's -41.11%.

Which ETF is better, GNR or FMAT?

On 10-year performance, GNR leads with 10.91% vs 10.33% for FMAT. On fees, FMAT is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, GNR has been the lower-risk option at 4.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GNR or FMAT?

Over the 10-year period, GNR has performed better with a 10.91% return vs 10.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GNR or FMAT?

FMAT is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GNR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GNR or FMAT?

GNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.47%, compared with 1.42% for FMAT.

What is the main difference between GNR and FMAT?

GNR is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while FMAT is Materials. GNR tracks S&P Global Natural Resources Index, while FMAT tracks MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GNR and 0.08% for FMAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 1.28), 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.