MUSQ vs. FMET

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

MUSQ (MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF) and FMET (Fidelity Metaverse ETF) are both Communications Equities funds. MUSQ is passively managed, while FMET is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, MUSQ returned -0.43%/yr vs 11.40%/yr for FMET. Their 0.70 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. MUSQ charges 0.76%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FMET.

Performance

MUSQ vs. FMET - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ) and Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MUSQ achieves a -12.75% return, which is significantly lower than FMET's 3.07% return.

MUSQ

• 1D: -4.84%
• 1M: -4.32%
• 6M: -11.21%
• YTD: -12.75%
• 1Y: -8.84%
• 3Y*: -0.43%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 0.00%

FMET

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: 0.62%
• 6M: 4.91%
• YTD: 3.07%
• 1Y: 7.40%
• 3Y*: 11.40%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.30%

*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)
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	$106.31K	$94.10K	$143.93K
MUSQ MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF	$161.63K	$82.87K	$43.23K

MUSQ vs. FMET - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MUSQ MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF	-12.75%	19.60%	-4.94%	0.81%
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	3.07%	21.93%	6.76%	11.94%

Correlation

The correlation between MUSQ and FMET is 0.67, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 7, 2023	0.70

The correlation between MUSQ and FMET has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

MUSQ vs. FMET - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MUSQ	FMET
Communication Services	77.3%	39.6%
Consumer Cyclical	11.5%	-
Technology	10.6%	52.1%
Industrials	0.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	8.3%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

MUSQ vs. FMET — Risk / Return Rank

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

MUSQ

MUSQ Risk / Return Rank: 5
MUSQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
MUSQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
MUSQ Omega Ratio Rank: 4
MUSQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
MUSQ Martin Ratio Rank: 5

FMET

FMET Risk / Return Rank: 16
FMET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
FMET Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FMET Omega Ratio Rank: 16
FMET Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
FMET Martin Ratio Rank: 15

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.

MUSQ vs. FMET - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ) and Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET). 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.

	MUSQ	FMET	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.59	0.27	-0.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.72	0.51	-1.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.91	1.06	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.46	0.25	-0.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.94	0.62	-1.56

MUSQ vs. FMET - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MUSQ Sharpe Ratio is -0.59, which is lower than the FMET Sharpe Ratio of 0.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MUSQ and FMET, 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

MUSQ vs. FMET - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MUSQ drawdown since its inception was -23.11%, smaller than the maximum FMET drawdown of -29.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUSQ and FMET.

Drawdown Indicators

	MUSQ	FMET	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.11%	-29.94%	+6.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.11%	-23.00%	-0.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.11%	-25.02%	+1.91%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.60%	-7.53%	-11.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.07%	-7.71%	+0.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.39%	9.17%	+2.22%

Volatility

MUSQ vs. FMET - Volatility Comparison

MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF (MUSQ) has a higher volatility of 6.64% compared to Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) at 4.88%. This indicates that MUSQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FMET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MUSQ	FMET	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.64%	4.88%	+1.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.14%	17.48%	-2.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.14%	21.32%	-3.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.08%	24.30%	-6.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.08%	24.30%	-6.22%

MUSQ vs. FMET - Expense Ratio Comparison

MUSQ has a 0.76% expense ratio, which is higher than FMET's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

MUSQ vs. FMET - Dividend Comparison

MUSQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.72%, more than FMET's 0.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	0.51%	0.81%	0.44%	0.40%	0.18%
MUSQ MUSQ Global Music Industry Index ETF	0.72%	0.63%	1.08%	0.74%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MUSQ and FMET in my portfolio?

MUSQ and FMET have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MUSQ or FMET?

MUSQ has higher volatility (6.64%) compared to FMET (4.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MUSQ dropped -23.11% vs FMET's -29.94%.

Which ETF is better, MUSQ or FMET?

On 3-year performance, FMET leads with 11.40% vs -0.43% for MUSQ. On fees, FMET is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FMET has been the lower-risk option at 4.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MUSQ or FMET?

Over the 3-year period, FMET has performed better with a 11.40% return vs -0.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MUSQ or FMET?

FMET is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.76% for MUSQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MUSQ or FMET?

MUSQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.72%, compared with 0.51% for FMET.

What is the main difference between MUSQ and FMET?

They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.76% for MUSQ and 0.39% for FMET.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FMET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.27 vs -0.59), 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.