GOLS vs. FDCF
GOLS (Gabelli Opportunities in Live and Sports ETF) and FDCF (Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF) are both Communications Equities funds. Both are actively managed. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GOLS charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FDCF.
Performance
GOLS vs. FDCF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
GOLS
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- 1.42%
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FDCF
- 1D
- -3.94%
- 1M
- -1.02%
- YTD
- 2.19%
- 6M
- 2.78%
- 1Y
- 17.49%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GOLS vs. FDCF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
GOLS Gabelli Opportunities in Live and Sports ETF | 3.97% |
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF | 1.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between GOLS and FDCF is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 5, 2026 | 0.65 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
GOLS vs. FDCF — Risk / Return Rank
GOLS
FDCF
GOLS vs. FDCF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Gabelli Opportunities in Live and Sports ETF (GOLS) and Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF (FDCF). 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GOLS | FDCF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 0.94 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.72 | 1.22 | -0.50 |
Drawdowns
GOLS vs. FDCF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GOLS drawdown since its inception was -7.85%, smaller than the maximum FDCF drawdown of -22.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GOLS and FDCF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GOLS | FDCF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -7.85% | -22.53% | +14.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -18.10% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.29% | -5.08% | +2.79% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.96% | -4.16% | +2.20% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 5.98% | — |
Volatility
GOLS vs. FDCF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GOLS | FDCF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 5.88% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 14.57% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.56% | 18.77% | -5.21% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.56% | 20.69% | -7.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.56% | 20.69% | -7.13% |
GOLS vs. FDCF - Expense Ratio Comparison
GOLS has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than FDCF's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
GOLS vs. FDCF - Dividend Comparison
GOLS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FDCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.03%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF | 0.03% | 0.09% | 0.25% | 0.19% |
GOLS Gabelli Opportunities in Live and Sports ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GOLS and FDCF have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FDCF is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FDCF is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for GOLS.
FDCF has the higher dividend yield at 0.03%, compared with 0.00% for GOLS.
They also come from different issuers: Gabelli and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for GOLS and 0.50% for FDCF.
Find the right allocation for GOLS and FDCF
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer