MMTM vs. FCNTX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MMTM (SPDR S&P 1500 Momentum Tilt ETF) and FCNTX (Fidelity Contrafund) are both funds - MMTM is a Momentum fund tracking the S&P 1500 Positive Momentum Tilt Index, while FCNTX is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund managed by Fidelity. Over the past 10 years, MMTM returned 15.00%/yr vs 17.43%/yr for FCNTX. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MMTM charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FCNTX.

Performance

MMTM vs. FCNTX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P 1500 Momentum Tilt ETF (MMTM) and Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MMTM achieves a 9.16% return, which is significantly higher than FCNTX's 7.76% return. Over the past 10 years, MMTM has underperformed FCNTX with an annualized return of 15.00%, while FCNTX has yielded a comparatively higher 17.43% annualized return.

MMTM

• 1D: -1.07%
• 1M: 2.46%
• YTD: 9.16%
• 6M: 9.58%
• 1Y: 24.27%
• 3Y*: 22.46%
• 5Y*: 13.50%
• 10Y*: 15.00%

FCNTX

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 3.65%
• YTD: 7.76%
• 6M: 10.05%
• 1Y: 23.72%
• 3Y*: 26.93%
• 5Y*: 15.12%
• 10Y*: 17.43%

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

MMTM vs. FCNTX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MMTM SPDR S&P 1500 Momentum Tilt ETF	9.16%	13.26%	29.94%	22.49%	-16.12%	26.33%	19.27%	29.98%	-4.62%	24.41%
FCNTX Fidelity Contrafund	7.76%	21.76%	36.00%	38.67%	-28.31%	24.52%	32.48%	30.00%	-3.81%	32.18%

Correlation

The correlation between MMTM and FCNTX is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 26, 2012	0.77

The correlation between MMTM and FCNTX shifts across timeframes, from 0.77 (all time) to 0.92 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MMTM vs. FCNTX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MMTM	FCNTX
Technology	29.5%	27.0%
Financial Services	16.0%	13.8%
Consumer Cyclical	12.4%	10.1%
Healthcare	10.8%	9.2%
Communication Services	7.7%	21.2%
Industrials	7.6%	8.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	3.7%
Real Estate	3.1%	0.1%
Utilities	2.6%	0.5%
Basic Materials	2.0%	2.1%
Energy	1.7%	3.6%

Return for Risk

MMTM vs. FCNTX — Risk / Return Rank

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

MMTM

MMTM Risk / Return Rank: 51
MMTM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
MMTM Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
MMTM Omega Ratio Rank: 49
MMTM Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
MMTM Martin Ratio Rank: 62

FCNTX

FCNTX Risk / Return Rank: 35
FCNTX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
FCNTX Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
FCNTX Omega Ratio Rank: 34
FCNTX Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
FCNTX Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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.

MMTM vs. FCNTX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P 1500 Momentum Tilt ETF (MMTM) and Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX). 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.

	MMTM	FCNTX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.72	1.72	0.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.40	2.39	0.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.31	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.46	2.13	+0.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.15	9.04	+2.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MMTM vs. FCNTX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MMTM Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is comparable to the FCNTX Sharpe Ratio of 1.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MMTM and FCNTX, 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

	MMTM	FCNTX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.72	1.72	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75	0.79	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.81	0.89	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.85	0.78	+0.07

Drawdowns

MMTM vs. FCNTX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MMTM drawdown since its inception was -33.85%, smaller than the maximum FCNTX drawdown of -49.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MMTM and FCNTX.

Drawdown Indicators

	MMTM	FCNTX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.85%	-49.19%	+15.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.89%	-11.30%	+1.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.08%	-19.75%	-2.33%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.72%	-32.59%	+8.87%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.85%	-32.59%	-1.26%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.48%	-0.53%	-0.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.20%	-8.16%	+3.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.18%	2.65%	-0.47%

Volatility

MMTM vs. FCNTX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P 1500 Momentum Tilt ETF (MMTM) is 2.35%, while Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX) has a volatility of 3.26%. This indicates that MMTM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FCNTX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MMTM	FCNTX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.35%	3.26%	-0.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.73%	10.48%	+0.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.19%	14.03%	+0.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.20%	19.15%	-0.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.65%	19.68%	-1.03%

MMTM vs. FCNTX - Expense Ratio Comparison

MMTM has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than FCNTX's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

MMTM vs. FCNTX - Dividend Comparison

MMTM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%, less than FCNTX's 4.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCNTX Fidelity Contrafund	4.33%	5.21%	4.19%	3.78%	11.87%	10.80%	8.01%	4.16%	7.46%	6.08%	3.81%	5.33%
MMTM SPDR S&P 1500 Momentum Tilt ETF	0.78%	0.86%	0.83%	1.16%	1.67%	0.95%	1.14%	1.55%	1.64%	1.52%	1.98%	1.68%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MMTM and FCNTX in my portfolio?

MMTM and FCNTX 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, MMTM or FCNTX?

FCNTX has higher volatility (3.26%) compared to MMTM (2.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MMTM dropped -33.85% vs FCNTX's -49.19%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MMTM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.72 vs 1.72), 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.