NNRG.NEO vs. FCUV.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

NNRG.NEO (Ninepoint Energy ETF) and FCUV.TO (Fidelity U.S. Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NNRG.NEO is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P/TSX Capped Energy Total Return Index, while FCUV.TO is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Fidelity Canada U.S. Value Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, NNRG.NEO returned 34.11%/yr vs 21.83%/yr for FCUV.TO. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NNRG.NEO charges 1.79%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for FCUV.TO.

Performance

NNRG.NEO vs. FCUV.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) and Fidelity U.S. Value ETF (FCUV.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NNRG.NEO achieves a 47.23% return, which is significantly higher than FCUV.TO's 14.86% return.

NNRG.NEO

• 1D: 1.12%
• 1M: 4.71%
• YTD: 47.23%
• 6M: 39.62%
• 1Y: 70.90%
• 3Y*: 26.98%
• 5Y*: 34.11%
• 10Y*: —

FCUV.TO

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 5.73%
• YTD: 14.86%
• 6M: 13.17%
• 1Y: 35.87%
• 3Y*: 26.57%
• 5Y*: 21.83%
• 10Y*: —

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

NNRG.NEO vs. FCUV.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
NNRG.NEO Ninepoint Energy ETF	47.23%	19.14%	13.26%	-4.21%	66.18%	55.91%
FCUV.TO Fidelity U.S. Value ETF	14.86%	14.80%	35.81%	19.98%	2.58%	20.73%

Correlation

The correlation between NNRG.NEO and FCUV.TO is -0.12, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.12
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.19
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2021	0.29

The correlation between NNRG.NEO and FCUV.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.29 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NNRG.NEO vs. FCUV.TO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NNRG.NEO	FCUV.TO
Energy	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	9.2%
Communication Services	-	3.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	15.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	18.8%
Healthcare	-	3.0%
Industrials	-	14.1%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	27.5%
Utilities	-	8.5%

Return for Risk

NNRG.NEO vs. FCUV.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

NNRG.NEO

NNRG.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 83
NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
NNRG.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
NNRG.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 81
NNRG.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
NNRG.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 74

FCUV.TO

FCUV.TO Risk / Return Rank: 82
FCUV.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FCUV.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
FCUV.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 77
FCUV.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FCUV.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

NNRG.NEO vs. FCUV.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) and Fidelity U.S. Value ETF (FCUV.TO). 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.

	NNRG.NEO	FCUV.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.92	2.51	+0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.45	3.39	+0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.45	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.60	5.28	+1.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.91	18.64	-4.74
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NNRG.NEO vs. FCUV.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NNRG.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 2.92, which is comparable to the FCUV.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NNRG.NEO and FCUV.TO, 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

	NNRG.NEO	FCUV.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.92	2.51	+0.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.99	1.45	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	1.54	-0.47

Drawdowns

NNRG.NEO vs. FCUV.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NNRG.NEO drawdown since its inception was -35.78%, which is greater than FCUV.TO's maximum drawdown of -16.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NNRG.NEO and FCUV.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	NNRG.NEO	FCUV.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.78%	-16.47%	-19.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.84%	-6.70%	-4.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.52%	-16.47%	-7.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.78%	-16.47%	-19.31%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.63%	-1.41%	-2.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.58%	-2.52%	-7.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.14%	1.90%	+3.24%

Volatility

NNRG.NEO vs. FCUV.TO - Volatility Comparison

Ninepoint Energy ETF (NNRG.NEO) has a higher volatility of 10.30% compared to Fidelity U.S. Value ETF (FCUV.TO) at 5.31%. This indicates that NNRG.NEO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCUV.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NNRG.NEO	FCUV.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.30%	5.31%	+4.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.65%	10.95%	+9.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.55%	14.11%	+10.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.60%	15.14%	+19.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.55%	14.72%	+19.83%

NNRG.NEO vs. FCUV.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

NNRG.NEO has a 1.79% expense ratio, which is higher than FCUV.TO's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

NNRG.NEO vs. FCUV.TO - Dividend Comparison

NNRG.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.51%, less than FCUV.TO's 0.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FCUV.TO Fidelity U.S. Value ETF	0.92%	1.13%	1.03%	1.42%	2.71%	1.40%	1.14%
NNRG.NEO Ninepoint Energy ETF	0.51%	0.37%	0.39%	0.38%	9.08%	1.92%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NNRG.NEO and FCUV.TO in my portfolio?

NNRG.NEO and FCUV.TO have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, NNRG.NEO or FCUV.TO?

On fees, FCUV.TO is cheaper at 0.38% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, NNRG.NEO or FCUV.TO?

FCUV.TO is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 1.79% for NNRG.NEO.

What is the main difference between NNRG.NEO and FCUV.TO?

NNRG.NEO is categorized as Energy Equities, while FCUV.TO is Large Cap Value Equities. NNRG.NEO tracks S&P/TSX Capped Energy Total Return Index, while FCUV.TO tracks Fidelity Canada U.S. Value Index. They also come from different issuers: Ninepoint and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 1.79% for NNRG.NEO and 0.38% for FCUV.TO.