IMCB vs. FFSM

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

IMCB (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF) and FFSM (Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. IMCB is passively managed, while FFSM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, IMCB returned 8.89%/yr vs 10.98%/yr for FFSM. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IMCB charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for FFSM.

Performance

IMCB vs. FFSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB) and Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMCB achieves a 16.15% return, which is significantly lower than FFSM's 22.47% return.

IMCB

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: 4.00%
• YTD: 16.15%
• 6M: 14.45%
• 1Y: 22.88%
• 3Y*: 17.88%
• 5Y*: 8.89%
• 10Y*: 11.77%

FFSM

• 1D: 0.64%
• 1M: 5.51%
• YTD: 22.47%
• 6M: 19.44%
• 1Y: 39.96%
• 3Y*: 22.39%
• 5Y*: 10.98%
• 10Y*: —

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

IMCB vs. FFSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IMCB iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF	16.15%	10.25%	15.10%	16.37%	-16.09%	20.49%
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	22.47%	14.89%	14.38%	17.30%	-16.35%	20.44%

Correlation

The correlation between IMCB and FFSM is 0.89, 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	0.89
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2021	0.95

The correlation between IMCB and FFSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

IMCB vs. FFSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IMCB	FFSM
Technology	22.6%	14.0%
Industrials	18.5%	29.5%
Financial Services	11.9%	22.7%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	12.2%
Healthcare	7.9%	9.1%
Energy	6.7%	2.2%
Utilities	6.0%	1.8%
Basic Materials	5.3%	6.2%
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	2.3%
Real Estate	4.3%	0.0%
Communication Services	2.5%	-

Return for Risk

IMCB vs. FFSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMCB

IMCB Risk / Return Rank: 61
IMCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
IMCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
IMCB Omega Ratio Rank: 54
IMCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
IMCB Martin Ratio Rank: 68

FFSM

FFSM Risk / Return Rank: 78
FFSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
FFSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
FFSM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
FFSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
FFSM Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

IMCB vs. FFSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB) and Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM). 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.

	IMCB	FFSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	2.16	-0.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.45	3.01	-0.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.37	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.86	3.87	-1.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.18	15.58	-4.40

IMCB vs. FFSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMCB Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is comparable to the FFSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMCB and FFSM, 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

IMCB vs. FFSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMCB drawdown since its inception was -58.80%, which is greater than FFSM's maximum drawdown of -26.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMCB and FFSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMCB	FFSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.80%	-26.65%	-32.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.05%	-10.37%	+2.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.80%	-24.78%	+4.98%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.15%	-26.65%	+1.50%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.35%	-0.87%	+0.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.71%	-7.78%	+0.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.05%	2.57%	-0.52%

Volatility

IMCB vs. FFSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB) is 4.70%, while Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) has a volatility of 6.37%. This indicates that IMCB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMCB	FFSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.70%	6.37%	-1.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.27%	14.65%	-4.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.30%	18.63%	-5.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.64%	20.76%	-3.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.66%	20.61%	-0.95%

IMCB vs. FFSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMCB has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than FFSM's 0.43% expense ratio.

Dividends

IMCB vs. FFSM - Dividend Comparison

IMCB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.23%, more than FFSM's 0.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.43%	0.56%	0.62%	0.56%	0.58%	0.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IMCB iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF	1.23%	1.42%	1.43%	1.55%	1.70%	1.08%	1.12%	1.32%	1.80%	1.31%	1.79%	1.47%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMCB and FFSM in my portfolio?

IMCB and FFSM have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IMCB or FFSM?

FFSM has higher volatility (6.37%) compared to IMCB (4.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMCB dropped -58.80% vs FFSM's -26.65%.

Which ETF is better, IMCB or FFSM?

On 5-year performance, FFSM leads with 10.98% vs 8.89% for IMCB. On fees, IMCB is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, IMCB has been the lower-risk option at 4.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IMCB or FFSM?

Over the 5-year period, FFSM has performed better with a 10.98% return vs 8.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IMCB or FFSM?

IMCB is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.43% for FFSM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IMCB or FFSM?

IMCB has the higher dividend yield at 1.23%, compared with 0.43% for FFSM.

What is the main difference between IMCB and FFSM?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for IMCB and 0.43% for FFSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.16 vs 1.73), 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.