MGV vs. FELV

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

MGV (Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF) and FELV (Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Value ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. MGV is passively managed, while FELV is actively managed. Over the past year, MGV returned 29.26% vs 36.79% for FELV. Their correlation of 0.93 means they have usually moved in the same direction. MGV charges 0.05%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for FELV.

Performance

MGV vs. FELV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF (MGV) and Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Value ETF (FELV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MGV achieves a 17.26% return, which is significantly lower than FELV's 23.19% return.

MGV

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: -0.09%
• 6M: 10.64%
• YTD: 17.26%
• 1Y: 29.26%
• 3Y*: 18.40%
• 5Y*: 12.90%
• 10Y*: 12.76%
• ALL TIME*: 9.32%

FELV

• 1D: 0.93%
• 1M: 4.23%
• 6M: 17.57%
• YTD: 23.19%
• 1Y: 36.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 23.71%

*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)
FELV Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Value ETF	$8.12M	$7.54M	$6.16M
MGV Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF	$37.79M	$38.66M	$40.05M

MGV vs. FELV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MGV Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF	17.26%	15.45%	16.94%	6.37%
FELV Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Value ETF	23.19%	15.80%	15.89%	7.49%

Correlation

The correlation between MGV and FELV is 0.88, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 20, 2023	0.93

The correlation between MGV and FELV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

MGV vs. FELV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MGV	FELV
Financial Services	23.1%	18.7%
Technology	18.1%	22.0%
Healthcare	16.7%	11.0%
Industrials	13.8%	13.2%
Consumer Defensive	10.7%	5.3%
Energy	5.5%	5.4%
Consumer Cyclical	3.8%	10.3%
Communication Services	3.0%	4.9%
Basic Materials	2.3%	2.4%
Utilities	2.0%	3.7%
Real Estate	1.0%	3.1%

Return for Risk

MGV vs. FELV — Risk / Return Rank

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

MGV

MGV Risk / Return Rank: 94
MGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
MGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
MGV Omega Ratio Rank: 94
MGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
MGV Martin Ratio Rank: 93

FELV

FELV Risk / Return Rank: 96
FELV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
FELV Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
FELV Omega Ratio Rank: 96
FELV Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
FELV Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

MGV vs. FELV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF (MGV) and Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Value ETF (FELV). 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.

	MGV	FELV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.88	3.33	-0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.09	4.56	-0.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.61	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.58	5.39	-0.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.81	23.57	-5.76

MGV vs. FELV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MGV Sharpe Ratio is 2.88, which is comparable to the FELV Sharpe Ratio of 3.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MGV and FELV, 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

MGV vs. FELV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MGV drawdown since its inception was -56.07%, which is greater than FELV's maximum drawdown of -16.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MGV and FELV.

Drawdown Indicators

	MGV	FELV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.07%	-16.08%	-39.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.42%	-6.85%	+0.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.18%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.54%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.41%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.93%	0.00%	-0.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.73%	-1.97%	-5.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.65%	1.56%	+0.09%

Volatility

MGV vs. FELV - Volatility Comparison

Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF (MGV) has a higher volatility of 2.77% compared to Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Value ETF (FELV) at 2.38%. This indicates that MGV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FELV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MGV	FELV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.77%	2.38%	+0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.85%	8.47%	-0.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.21%	11.14%	-0.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.55%	13.31%	+0.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.30%	13.31%	+2.99%

MGV vs. FELV - Expense Ratio Comparison

MGV has a 0.05% expense ratio, which is lower than FELV's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

MGV vs. FELV - Dividend Comparison

MGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.86%, more than FELV's 1.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FELV Fidelity Enhanced Large Cap Value ETF	1.40%	1.67%	2.02%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MGV Vanguard Mega Cap Value ETF	1.86%	2.04%	2.31%	2.48%	2.45%	2.17%	2.47%	2.69%	2.65%	2.34%	2.53%	2.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MGV and FELV in my portfolio?

MGV and FELV have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MGV or FELV?

MGV has higher volatility (2.77%) compared to FELV (2.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MGV dropped -56.07% vs FELV's -16.08%.

Which ETF is better, MGV or FELV?

On 1-year performance, FELV leads with 36.79% vs 29.26% for MGV. On fees, MGV is cheaper at 0.05% per year. On volatility, FELV has been the lower-risk option at 2.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MGV or FELV?

Over the 1-year period, FELV has performed better with a 36.79% return vs 29.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MGV or FELV?

MGV is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for FELV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MGV or FELV?

MGV has the higher dividend yield at 1.86%, compared with 1.40% for FELV.

What is the main difference between MGV and FELV?

They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.05% for MGV and 0.18% for FELV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FELV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.33 vs 2.88), 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.