HAP vs. FFGCX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HAP (VanEck Natural Resources ETF) and FFGCX (Fidelity Global Commodity Stock Fund) are both funds - HAP is a Energy Equities fund tracking the MarketVector Global Natural Resources Index, while FFGCX is a Commodities fund managed by Fidelity. Over the past 10 years, HAP returned 11.99%/yr vs 13.04%/yr for FFGCX. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. HAP charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.94%/yr for FFGCX.

Performance

HAP vs. FFGCX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) and Fidelity Global Commodity Stock Fund (FFGCX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HAP achieves a 21.49% return, which is significantly lower than FFGCX's 24.64% return. Over the past 10 years, HAP has underperformed FFGCX with an annualized return of 11.99%, while FFGCX has yielded a comparatively higher 13.04% annualized return.

HAP

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 0.64%
• YTD: 21.49%
• 6M: 23.70%
• 1Y: 46.66%
• 3Y*: 18.93%
• 5Y*: 11.51%
• 10Y*: 11.99%

FFGCX

• 1D: 1.30%
• 1M: 0.79%
• YTD: 24.64%
• 6M: 27.09%
• 1Y: 52.31%
• 3Y*: 20.10%
• 5Y*: 13.70%
• 10Y*: 13.04%

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

HAP vs. FFGCX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	21.49%	34.91%	-4.08%	2.46%	7.84%	25.04%	6.30%	18.60%	-10.68%	17.12%
FFGCX Fidelity Global Commodity Stock Fund	24.64%	28.66%	2.98%	-5.18%	20.69%	26.08%	6.04%	17.82%	-13.21%	17.18%

Correlation

The correlation between HAP and FFGCX is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2009	0.95

The correlation between HAP and FFGCX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

HAP vs. FFGCX — Risk / Return Rank

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

HAP

HAP Risk / Return Rank: 89
HAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
HAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
HAP Omega Ratio Rank: 88
HAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
HAP Martin Ratio Rank: 92

FFGCX

FFGCX Risk / Return Rank: 91
FFGCX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
FFGCX Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FFGCX Omega Ratio Rank: 82
FFGCX Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
FFGCX Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

HAP vs. FFGCX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) and Fidelity Global Commodity Stock Fund (FFGCX). 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.

	HAP	FFGCX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.14	3.21	-0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.01	4.04	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	1.54	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.65	7.09	-1.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	23.05	25.64	-2.59
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HAP vs. FFGCX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HAP Sharpe Ratio is 3.14, which is comparable to the FFGCX Sharpe Ratio of 3.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HAP and FFGCX, 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

	HAP	FFGCX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.14	3.21	-0.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.63	0.64	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.61	0.58	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.26	0.35	-0.09

Drawdowns

HAP vs. FFGCX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HAP drawdown since its inception was -50.73%, smaller than the maximum FFGCX drawdown of -57.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HAP and FFGCX.

Drawdown Indicators

	HAP	FFGCX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.73%	-57.23%	+6.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.31%	-7.38%	-0.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.92%	-19.24%	+2.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.66%	-27.22%	+1.56%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.07%	-48.43%	+4.36%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.95%	-1.58%	-0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.03%	-19.37%	+7.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.03%	2.04%	-0.01%

Volatility

HAP vs. FFGCX - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) and Fidelity Global Commodity Stock Fund (FFGCX) have volatilities of 4.37% and 4.35%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HAP	FFGCX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.37%	4.35%	+0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.24%	13.28%	-1.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.91%	16.34%	-1.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.24%	21.37%	-3.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.74%	22.43%	-2.69%

HAP vs. FFGCX - Expense Ratio Comparison

HAP has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is lower than FFGCX's 0.94% expense ratio.

Dividends

HAP vs. FFGCX - Dividend Comparison

HAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.87%, less than FFGCX's 2.03% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FFGCX Fidelity Global Commodity Stock Fund	2.03%	2.53%	2.62%	2.01%	1.84%	3.39%	1.61%	2.98%	2.22%	0.36%	1.53%	2.86%
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	1.87%	2.27%	2.65%	3.27%	3.28%	2.16%	2.45%	2.80%	2.85%	2.02%	1.99%	3.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HAP and FFGCX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, HAP and FFGCX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, HAP or FFGCX?

HAP has higher volatility (4.37%) compared to FFGCX (4.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HAP dropped -50.73% vs FFGCX's -57.23%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFGCX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.21 vs 3.14), 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.