GXPC vs. FMET

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

GXPC (Global X PureCap MSCI Communication Services ETF) and FMET (Fidelity Metaverse ETF) are both Communications Equities funds. GXPC is passively managed, while FMET is actively managed. Over the past year, GXPC returned 18.47% vs 7.40% for FMET. Their 0.55 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GXPC charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FMET.

Performance

GXPC vs. FMET - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X PureCap MSCI Communication Services ETF (GXPC) and Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GXPC achieves a -0.23% return, which is significantly lower than FMET's 3.07% return.

GXPC

• 1D: 4.11%
• 1M: -2.08%
• 6M: -5.32%
• YTD: -0.23%
• 1Y: 18.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.60%

FMET

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: 0.62%
• 6M: 4.91%
• YTD: 3.07%
• 1Y: 7.40%
• 3Y*: 11.40%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.30%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	$106.31K	$94.10K	$143.93K
GXPC Global X PureCap MSCI Communication Services ETF	$9.39M	$10.86M	$5.78M

GXPC vs. FMET - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GXPC Global X PureCap MSCI Communication Services ETF	-0.23%	19.31%
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	3.07%	3.67%

Correlation

The correlation between GXPC and FMET is 0.55, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2025	0.55

The correlation between GXPC and FMET has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GXPC vs. FMET — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GXPC

GXPC Risk / Return Rank: 31
GXPC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
GXPC Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
GXPC Omega Ratio Rank: 31
GXPC Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
GXPC Martin Ratio Rank: 32

FMET

FMET Risk / Return Rank: 16
FMET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
FMET Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FMET Omega Ratio Rank: 16
FMET Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
FMET Martin Ratio Rank: 15

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GXPC vs. FMET - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X PureCap MSCI Communication Services ETF (GXPC) and Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET). 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.

	GXPC	FMET	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.75	0.27	+0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.22	0.51	+0.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.06	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.00	0.25	+0.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.91	0.62	+2.29

GXPC vs. FMET - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GXPC Sharpe Ratio is 0.75, which is higher than the FMET Sharpe Ratio of 0.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GXPC and FMET, 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

GXPC vs. FMET - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GXPC drawdown since its inception was -16.59%, smaller than the maximum FMET drawdown of -29.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GXPC and FMET.

Drawdown Indicators

	GXPC	FMET	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.59%	-29.94%	+13.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.59%	-23.00%	+6.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-25.02%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.74%	-7.53%	-3.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.03%	-7.71%	+3.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.70%	9.17%	-3.47%

Volatility

GXPC vs. FMET - Volatility Comparison

Global X PureCap MSCI Communication Services ETF (GXPC) has a higher volatility of 9.60% compared to Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) at 4.88%. This indicates that GXPC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FMET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GXPC	FMET	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.60%	4.88%	+4.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.18%	17.48%	+0.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.20%	21.32%	+0.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.95%	24.30%	-2.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.95%	24.30%	-2.35%

GXPC vs. FMET - Expense Ratio Comparison

GXPC has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than FMET's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

GXPC vs. FMET - Dividend Comparison

GXPC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%, less than FMET's 0.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	0.51%	0.81%	0.44%	0.40%	0.18%
GXPC Global X PureCap MSCI Communication Services ETF	0.32%	0.12%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GXPC and FMET in my portfolio?

GXPC and FMET have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GXPC or FMET?

GXPC has higher volatility (9.60%) compared to FMET (4.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GXPC dropped -16.59% vs FMET's -29.94%.

Which ETF is better, GXPC or FMET?

On 1-year performance, GXPC leads with 18.47% vs 7.40% for FMET. On fees, GXPC is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FMET has been the lower-risk option at 4.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GXPC or FMET?

Over the 1-year period, GXPC has performed better with a 18.47% return vs 7.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GXPC or FMET?

GXPC is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for FMET.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GXPC or FMET?

FMET has the higher dividend yield at 0.51%, compared with 0.32% for GXPC.

What is the main difference between GXPC and FMET?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for GXPC and 0.39% for FMET.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GXPC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.75 vs 0.27), 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.