GRPM vs. FCNTX

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

GRPM (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF) and FCNTX (Fidelity Contrafund) are both funds - GRPM is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400® GARP Index, while FCNTX is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund managed by Fidelity. Over the past 10 years, GRPM returned 10.98%/yr vs 17.20%/yr for FCNTX. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GRPM charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FCNTX.

Performance

GRPM vs. FCNTX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) and Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GRPM achieves a 7.01% return, which is significantly higher than FCNTX's 6.03% return. Over the past 10 years, GRPM has underperformed FCNTX with an annualized return of 10.98%, while FCNTX has yielded a comparatively higher 17.20% annualized return.

GRPM

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: 1.82%
• YTD: 7.01%
• 6M: 6.96%
• 1Y: 21.75%
• 3Y*: 14.21%
• 5Y*: 7.56%
• 10Y*: 10.98%

FCNTX

• 1D: -2.98%
• 1M: 0.19%
• YTD: 6.03%
• 6M: 6.20%
• 1Y: 19.84%
• 3Y*: 26.22%
• 5Y*: 14.50%
• 10Y*: 17.20%

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

GRPM vs. FCNTX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GRPM Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF	7.01%	7.81%	15.67%	18.79%	-11.63%	26.35%	15.60%	23.05%	-12.45%	13.05%
FCNTX Fidelity Contrafund	6.03%	21.76%	36.00%	38.67%	-28.31%	24.52%	32.48%	30.00%	-3.81%	32.18%

Correlation

The correlation between GRPM and FCNTX is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.70
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2010	0.72

The correlation between GRPM and FCNTX shifts across timeframes, from 0.52 (1 year) to 0.72 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GRPM vs. FCNTX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRPM	FCNTX
Financial Services	30.6%	13.8%
Technology	15.8%	27.0%
Energy	15.0%	3.6%
Consumer Cyclical	11.4%	10.1%
Healthcare	11.4%	9.2%
Industrials	9.4%	8.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.5%	3.7%
Basic Materials	-	2.1%
Communication Services	-	21.2%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

GRPM vs. FCNTX — Risk / Return Rank

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

GRPM

GRPM Risk / Return Rank: 49
GRPM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
GRPM Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
GRPM Omega Ratio Rank: 40
GRPM Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
GRPM Martin Ratio Rank: 53

FCNTX

FCNTX Risk / Return Rank: 30
FCNTX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
FCNTX Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
FCNTX Omega Ratio Rank: 28
FCNTX Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
FCNTX Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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.

GRPM vs. FCNTX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) and Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX). 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.

	GRPM	FCNTX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	1.49	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.01	2.06	-0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.27	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.87	1.89	+0.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.47	8.00	+0.47
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GRPM vs. FCNTX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GRPM Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is comparable to the FCNTX Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GRPM and FCNTX, 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

	GRPM	FCNTX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.36	1.49	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36	0.76	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.50	0.88	-0.38
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.77	-0.23

Drawdowns

GRPM vs. FCNTX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRPM drawdown since its inception was -43.12%, smaller than the maximum FCNTX drawdown of -49.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRPM and FCNTX.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRPM	FCNTX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.12%	-49.19%	+6.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.62%	-11.30%	+3.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.09%	-19.75%	-8.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.09%	-32.59%	+4.50%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-43.12%	-32.59%	-10.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.17%	-2.98%	+1.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.71%	-8.16%	+2.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.57%	2.66%	-0.09%

Volatility

GRPM vs. FCNTX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) is 3.79%, while Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX) has a volatility of 4.35%. This indicates that GRPM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FCNTX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GRPM	FCNTX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.79%	4.35%	-0.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.52%	10.93%	-0.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.10%	14.35%	+1.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.91%	19.19%	+1.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.26%	19.70%	+2.56%

GRPM vs. FCNTX - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRPM has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than FCNTX's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRPM vs. FCNTX - Dividend Comparison

GRPM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.96%, less than FCNTX's 4.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCNTX Fidelity Contrafund	4.40%	5.21%	4.19%	3.78%	11.87%	10.80%	8.01%	4.16%	7.46%	6.08%	3.81%	5.33%
GRPM Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF	0.96%	1.19%	0.95%	0.96%	1.28%	0.92%	1.16%	1.25%	1.50%	1.14%	1.00%	1.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRPM and FCNTX in my portfolio?

GRPM and FCNTX have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GRPM or FCNTX?

FCNTX has higher volatility (4.35%) compared to GRPM (3.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRPM dropped -43.12% vs FCNTX's -49.19%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FCNTX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.49 vs 1.36), 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.