NCBVX vs. FCVFX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NCBVX (PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund) and FCVFX (Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C) are both Mid Cap Value Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, NCBVX returned 7.74%/yr vs 12.38%/yr for FCVFX. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. NCBVX charges 1.95%/yr vs 1.90%/yr for FCVFX.

Performance

NCBVX vs. FCVFX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund (NCBVX) and Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C (FCVFX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with NCBVX having a 15.75% return and FCVFX slightly higher at 16.20%. Over the past 10 years, NCBVX has underperformed FCVFX with an annualized return of 7.74%, while FCVFX has yielded a comparatively higher 12.38% annualized return.

NCBVX

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 4.13%
• YTD: 15.75%
• 6M: 16.02%
• 1Y: 30.32%
• 3Y*: 17.51%
• 5Y*: 7.60%
• 10Y*: 7.74%

FCVFX

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 3.39%
• YTD: 16.20%
• 6M: 17.37%
• 1Y: 33.21%
• 3Y*: 22.88%
• 5Y*: 11.97%
• 10Y*: 12.38%

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

NCBVX vs. FCVFX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NCBVX PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund	15.75%	11.86%	10.49%	10.40%	-10.18%	33.13%	-7.31%	18.78%	-20.51%	11.63%
FCVFX Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C	16.20%	10.14%	24.29%	18.53%	-10.07%	33.72%	8.57%	30.36%	-18.65%	14.05%

Correlation

The correlation between NCBVX and FCVFX is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 26, 2003	0.96

The correlation between NCBVX and FCVFX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NCBVX vs. FCVFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

NCBVX

NCBVX Risk / Return Rank: 76
NCBVX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
NCBVX Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
NCBVX Omega Ratio Rank: 59
NCBVX Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
NCBVX Martin Ratio Rank: 90

FCVFX

FCVFX Risk / Return Rank: 62
FCVFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
FCVFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
FCVFX Omega Ratio Rank: 49
FCVFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
FCVFX Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

NCBVX vs. FCVFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund (NCBVX) and Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C (FCVFX). 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.

	NCBVX	FCVFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.44	2.21	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.47	3.18	+0.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.38	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.02	3.55	+1.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.22	13.01	+5.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NCBVX vs. FCVFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NCBVX Sharpe Ratio is 2.44, which is comparable to the FCVFX Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NCBVX and FCVFX, 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

	NCBVX	FCVFX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.44	2.21	+0.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	0.56	-0.16
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.34	0.55	-0.21
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	0.42	-0.01

Drawdowns

NCBVX vs. FCVFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NCBVX drawdown since its inception was -60.64%, smaller than the maximum FCVFX drawdown of -65.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NCBVX and FCVFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	NCBVX	FCVFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.64%	-65.18%	+4.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.31%	-9.99%	+3.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.27%	-21.74%	+0.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.15%	-23.11%	-0.04%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-57.50%	-48.67%	-8.83%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.10%	-9.06%	-0.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.74%	2.72%	-0.98%

Volatility

NCBVX vs. FCVFX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund (NCBVX) is 3.49%, while Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C (FCVFX) has a volatility of 4.17%. This indicates that NCBVX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FCVFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NCBVX	FCVFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.49%	4.17%	-0.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.42%	11.42%	-2.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.02%	16.09%	-3.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.81%	21.31%	-2.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.67%	22.56%	+0.11%

NCBVX vs. FCVFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

NCBVX has a 1.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FCVFX's 1.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

NCBVX vs. FCVFX - Dividend Comparison

NCBVX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.59%, less than FCVFX's 7.07% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCVFX Fidelity Advisor Value Fund Class C	7.07%	8.22%	25.20%	0.12%	0.00%	4.16%	0.00%	2.46%	14.34%	2.34%	0.00%	1.94%
NCBVX PGIM Quant Solutions Mid-Cap Value Fund	0.59%	0.68%	1.03%	1.59%	1.17%	0.74%	1.60%	1.93%	13.70%	6.69%	2.83%	7.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NCBVX and FCVFX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, NCBVX and FCVFX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, NCBVX or FCVFX?

FCVFX has higher volatility (4.17%) compared to NCBVX (3.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NCBVX dropped -60.64% vs FCVFX's -65.18%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NCBVX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.44 vs 2.21), 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.