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. Their 0.53 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GOLS charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FDCF.
Performance
GOLS vs. FDCF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
GOLS
- 1D
- -0.79%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- 6M
- 7.19%
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
FDCF
- 1D
- -0.62%
- 1M
- -1.74%
- 6M
- 11.02%
- YTD
- 4.02%
- 1Y
- 11.63%
- 3Y*
- 23.76%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 24.61%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $362.59K | $337.45K | $430.02K | |
| $153.76K | $158.80K | $111.31K |
GOLS vs. FDCF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
GOLS Gabelli Opportunities in Live and Sports ETF | 5.59% |
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF | 4.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between GOLS and FDCF is 0.53, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 2, 2026 | 0.53 |
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
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
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.
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.
| GOLS | FDCF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.11 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.65 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 1.85 | — |
Loading charts...
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% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -22.53% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.34% | -3.38% | +2.04% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.96% | -4.17% | +2.21% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 6.29% | — |
Volatility
GOLS vs. FDCF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GOLS | FDCF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 5.45% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 15.58% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.76% | 19.69% | -5.93% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.76% | 20.71% | -6.95% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.76% | 20.71% | -6.95% |
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 0.07%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF | 0.07% | 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 0.53, 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 0.07%, 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