OAIM vs. FDEV

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

OAIM (OneAscent International Equity ETF) and FDEV (Fidelity International Multifactor ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. OAIM is actively managed, while FDEV is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, OAIM returned 19.42%/yr vs 15.00%/yr for FDEV. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. OAIM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for FDEV.

Performance

OAIM vs. FDEV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in OneAscent International Equity ETF (OAIM) and Fidelity International Multifactor ETF (FDEV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, OAIM achieves a 17.79% return, which is significantly higher than FDEV's 4.68% return.

OAIM

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: 5.37%
• YTD: 17.79%
• 6M: 17.93%
• 1Y: 34.67%
• 3Y*: 19.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FDEV

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: -1.64%
• YTD: 4.68%
• 6M: 4.44%
• 1Y: 15.90%
• 3Y*: 15.00%
• 5Y*: 7.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

OAIM vs. FDEV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
OAIM OneAscent International Equity ETF	17.79%	30.12%	8.18%	16.96%	7.50%
FDEV Fidelity International Multifactor ETF	4.68%	30.36%	5.84%	13.37%	5.94%

Correlation

The correlation between OAIM and FDEV is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2022	0.80

The correlation between OAIM and FDEV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

OAIM vs. FDEV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	OAIM	FDEV
Financial Services	25.3%	22.9%
Industrials	17.2%	16.1%
Technology	16.6%	3.4%
Energy	8.3%	10.8%
Basic Materials	7.9%	4.2%
Communication Services	6.2%	7.6%
Consumer Cyclical	5.3%	4.3%
Real Estate	4.7%	-
Healthcare	3.6%	13.1%
Utilities	3.3%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	9.5%

Return for Risk

OAIM vs. FDEV — Risk / Return Rank

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

OAIM

OAIM Risk / Return Rank: 67
OAIM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
OAIM Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
OAIM Omega Ratio Rank: 69
OAIM Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
OAIM Martin Ratio Rank: 67

FDEV

FDEV Risk / Return Rank: 39
FDEV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
FDEV Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
FDEV Omega Ratio Rank: 38
FDEV Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
FDEV 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.

OAIM vs. FDEV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for OneAscent International Equity ETF (OAIM) and Fidelity International Multifactor ETF (FDEV). 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.

	OAIM	FDEV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	1.34	+0.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.84	1.90	+0.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.24	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.20	1.89	+1.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.96	6.63	+5.33

OAIM vs. FDEV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current OAIM Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is higher than the FDEV Sharpe Ratio of 1.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of OAIM and FDEV, 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

OAIM vs. FDEV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum OAIM drawdown since its inception was -14.69%, smaller than the maximum FDEV drawdown of -30.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for OAIM and FDEV.

Drawdown Indicators

	OAIM	FDEV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.69%	-30.11%	+15.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.88%	-8.46%	-2.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.69%	-10.47%	-4.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.02%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-4.06%	+4.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.79%	-6.27%	+3.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.91%	2.40%	+0.51%

Volatility

OAIM vs. FDEV - Volatility Comparison

OneAscent International Equity ETF (OAIM) has a higher volatility of 6.77% compared to Fidelity International Multifactor ETF (FDEV) at 3.07%. This indicates that OAIM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FDEV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	OAIM	FDEV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.77%	3.07%	+3.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.56%	9.90%	+4.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.52%	11.97%	+4.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.05%	13.91%	+3.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.05%	15.31%	+1.74%

OAIM vs. FDEV - Expense Ratio Comparison

OAIM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FDEV's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

OAIM vs. FDEV - Dividend Comparison

OAIM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.84%, less than FDEV's 3.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FDEV Fidelity International Multifactor ETF	3.08%	2.86%	2.99%	2.80%	2.65%	2.81%	1.88%	2.73%
OAIM OneAscent International Equity ETF	0.84%	0.98%	2.40%	1.94%	0.60%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both OAIM and FDEV in my portfolio?

OAIM and FDEV have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, OAIM or FDEV?

OAIM has higher volatility (6.77%) compared to FDEV (3.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, OAIM dropped -14.69% vs FDEV's -30.11%.

Which ETF is better, OAIM or FDEV?

On 3-year performance, OAIM leads with 19.42% vs 15.00% for FDEV. On fees, FDEV is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FDEV has been the lower-risk option at 3.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, OAIM or FDEV?

Over the 3-year period, OAIM has performed better with a 19.42% return vs 15.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, OAIM or FDEV?

FDEV is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for OAIM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, OAIM or FDEV?

FDEV has the higher dividend yield at 3.08%, compared with 0.84% for OAIM.

What is the main difference between OAIM and FDEV?

They also come from different issuers: Oneascent and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for OAIM and 0.39% for FDEV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

OAIM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 1.34), 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.