LLSCX vs. FZAMX

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

LLSCX (Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund) and FZAMX (Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, LLSCX returned 5.78%/yr vs 12.22%/yr for FZAMX. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LLSCX charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for FZAMX.

Performance

LLSCX vs. FZAMX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund (LLSCX) and Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z (FZAMX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LLSCX achieves a -5.53% return, which is significantly lower than FZAMX's 19.86% return. Over the past 10 years, LLSCX has underperformed FZAMX with an annualized return of 5.78%, while FZAMX has yielded a comparatively higher 12.22% annualized return.

LLSCX

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -3.51%
• YTD: -5.53%
• 6M: -4.53%
• 1Y: -0.57%
• 3Y*: 8.35%
• 5Y*: 0.58%
• 10Y*: 5.78%

FZAMX

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: 2.37%
• YTD: 19.86%
• 6M: 22.36%
• 1Y: 38.12%
• 3Y*: 20.62%
• 5Y*: 10.77%
• 10Y*: 12.22%

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

LLSCX vs. FZAMX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LLSCX Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund	-5.53%	7.56%	9.69%	20.17%	-19.25%	11.18%	4.17%	27.74%	-6.52%	9.07%
FZAMX Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z	19.86%	12.00%	17.39%	15.15%	-14.70%	25.40%	18.84%	23.85%	-14.85%	20.78%

Correlation

The correlation between LLSCX and FZAMX is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2013	0.79

The correlation between LLSCX and FZAMX shifts across timeframes, from 0.60 (1 year) to 0.82 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LLSCX vs. FZAMX — Risk / Return Rank

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

LLSCX

LLSCX Risk / Return Rank: 2
LLSCX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
LLSCX Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
LLSCX Omega Ratio Rank: 2
LLSCX Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
LLSCX Martin Ratio Rank: 2

FZAMX

FZAMX Risk / Return Rank: 65
FZAMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
FZAMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
FZAMX Omega Ratio Rank: 51
FZAMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
FZAMX Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

LLSCX vs. FZAMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund (LLSCX) and Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z (FZAMX). 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.

	LLSCX	FZAMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.09	2.23	-2.32
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-0.03	3.06	-3.09
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.39	-0.40
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.11	3.85	-3.96
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-0.29	15.50	-15.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LLSCX vs. FZAMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LLSCX Sharpe Ratio is -0.09, which is lower than the FZAMX Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LLSCX and FZAMX, 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

	LLSCX	FZAMX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.09	2.23	-2.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.03	0.54	-0.50
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.24	0.59	-0.35
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.51	0.57	-0.06

Drawdowns

LLSCX vs. FZAMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LLSCX drawdown since its inception was -63.97%, which is greater than FZAMX's maximum drawdown of -42.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LLSCX and FZAMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	LLSCX	FZAMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-63.97%	-42.32%	-21.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.30%	-9.77%	-1.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.40%	-25.24%	+9.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.37%	-25.24%	-3.13%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.23%	-42.32%	+0.09%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.69%	-0.71%	-8.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.90%	-6.08%	-2.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.39%	2.43%	+1.96%

Volatility

LLSCX vs. FZAMX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund (LLSCX) is 3.31%, while Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z (FZAMX) has a volatility of 4.83%. This indicates that LLSCX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FZAMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LLSCX	FZAMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.31%	4.83%	-1.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.51%	13.69%	-5.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.76%	17.13%	-4.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.97%	20.22%	-3.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.58%	20.94%	+3.64%

LLSCX vs. FZAMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

LLSCX has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FZAMX's 0.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

LLSCX vs. FZAMX - Dividend Comparison

LLSCX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.24%, less than FZAMX's 5.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FZAMX Fidelity Advisor Mid Cap II Fund Class Z	5.88%	10.09%	6.93%	2.83%	5.86%	18.58%	1.41%	3.50%	10.72%	7.81%	5.00%	4.90%
LLSCX Longleaf Partners Small-Cap Fund	1.24%	1.17%	0.11%	0.94%	1.20%	0.82%	5.85%	14.89%	18.13%	8.43%	18.01%	5.91%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LLSCX and FZAMX in my portfolio?

LLSCX and FZAMX have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LLSCX or FZAMX?

FZAMX has higher volatility (4.83%) compared to LLSCX (3.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LLSCX dropped -63.97% vs FZAMX's -42.32%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FZAMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs -0.09), 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.