PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
JHMM vs. FAD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

JHMM vs. FAD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF (JHMM) and First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JHMM achieves a 12.60% return, which is significantly lower than FAD's 17.25% return. Over the past 10 years, JHMM has underperformed FAD with an annualized return of 11.88%, while FAD has yielded a comparatively higher 14.53% annualized return.


JHMM

1D
-0.24%
1M
3.21%
YTD
12.60%
6M
13.14%
1Y
24.83%
3Y*
17.01%
5Y*
8.39%
10Y*
11.88%

FAD

1D
-0.15%
1M
6.70%
YTD
17.25%
6M
17.16%
1Y
34.52%
3Y*
24.16%
5Y*
11.25%
10Y*
14.53%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

JHMM vs. FAD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
JHMM
John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF
12.60%10.73%14.61%14.53%-15.30%24.54%16.22%30.01%-9.57%19.96%
FAD
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund
17.25%17.23%23.85%19.07%-24.06%21.17%34.92%26.66%-6.45%25.75%

Correlation

The correlation between JHMM and FAD is 0.87, 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

0.87

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.91

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.92

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.90

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2015

0.89

The correlation between JHMM and FAD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

JHMM vs. FAD - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
JHMM
FAD

Industrials

19.4%
26.1%

Technology

17.2%
24.1%

Financial Services

15.3%
8.0%

Consumer Cyclical

11.0%
10.8%

Healthcare

10.2%
15.4%

Utilities

5.4%
1.6%

Energy

5.4%
1.6%

Real Estate

5.4%
4.1%

Basic Materials

4.2%
3.0%

Consumer Defensive

3.7%
2.4%

Communication Services

2.7%
3.1%

Industrials

JHMM
19.4%
FAD
26.1%

Technology

JHMM
17.2%
FAD
24.1%

Financial Services

JHMM
15.3%
FAD
8.0%

Consumer Cyclical

JHMM
11.0%
FAD
10.8%

Healthcare

JHMM
10.2%
FAD
15.4%

Utilities

JHMM
5.4%
FAD
1.6%

Energy

JHMM
5.4%
FAD
1.6%

Real Estate

JHMM
5.4%
FAD
4.1%

Basic Materials

JHMM
4.2%
FAD
3.0%

Consumer Defensive

JHMM
3.7%
FAD
2.4%

Communication Services

JHMM
2.7%
FAD
3.1%

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

JHMM vs. FAD — Risk / Return Rank

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

JHMM
JHMM Risk / Return Rank: 5555
Overall Rank
JHMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
JHMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
JHMM Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
JHMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
JHMM Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank

FAD
FAD Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
FAD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FAD Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
FAD Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
FAD Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
FAD Martin Ratio Rank: 6868
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

JHMM vs. FAD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF (JHMM) and First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD). 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.


JHMMFADDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.32

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.89

3.25

-0.37

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.17

12.54

-1.38

JHMM vs. FAD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JHMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is comparable to the FAD Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JHMM and FAD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


JHMMFADDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.77

1.88

-0.11

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.46

0.55

-0.09

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.61

0.69

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.63

0.50

+0.13

Drawdowns

JHMM vs. FAD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JHMM drawdown since its inception was -40.71%, smaller than the maximum FAD drawdown of -54.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JHMM and FAD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


JHMMFADDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-40.71%

-54.33%

+13.62%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.64%

-10.66%

+2.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.88%

-23.55%

+1.67%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.10%

-31.99%

+7.89%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.71%

-37.25%

-3.46%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.24%

-0.15%

-0.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.43%

-9.64%

+4.21%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.23%

2.76%

-0.53%

Volatility

JHMM vs. FAD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF (JHMM) is 3.81%, while First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FAD) has a volatility of 6.01%. This indicates that JHMM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FAD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


JHMMFADDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.81%

6.01%

-2.20%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.47%

14.14%

-3.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.12%

18.50%

-4.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.32%

20.53%

-2.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.60%

21.18%

-1.58%

JHMM vs. FAD - Expense Ratio Comparison

JHMM has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is lower than FAD's 0.63% expense ratio.


Dividends

JHMM vs. FAD - Dividend Comparison

JHMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, more than FAD's 0.09% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FAD
First Trust Multi Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund
0.09%0.09%0.59%0.51%0.60%0.09%0.32%0.48%0.20%0.22%0.64%0.41%
JHMM
John Hancock Multifactor Mid Cap ETF
0.87%0.98%1.01%1.17%1.16%0.72%1.04%1.02%1.36%0.90%1.15%0.33%

Frequently Asked Questions


JHMM and FAD have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FAD has higher volatility (6.01%) compared to JHMM (3.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JHMM dropped -40.71% vs FAD's -54.33%.

On 10-year performance, FAD leads with 14.53% vs 11.88% for JHMM. On fees, JHMM is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, JHMM has been the lower-risk option at 3.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FAD has performed better with a 14.53% return vs 11.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

JHMM is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.63% for FAD.

JHMM has the higher dividend yield at 0.87%, compared with 0.09% for FAD.

JHMM tracks John Hancock Dimensional Mid Cap Index, while FAD tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX Multi Cap Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Manulife and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for JHMM and 0.63% for FAD.

FAD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.88 vs 1.77), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for JHMM and FAD

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