ONEQ vs. BIBL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ONEQ (Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF) and BIBL (Inspire 100 ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - ONEQ tracks the Nasdaq Composite Index while BIBL tracks the Inspire 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ONEQ returned 13.39%/yr vs 10.30%/yr for BIBL. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ONEQ charges 0.21%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for BIBL.

Performance

ONEQ vs. BIBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ONEQ achieves a 10.75% return, which is significantly lower than BIBL's 24.57% return.

ONEQ

• 1D: -2.25%
• 1M: -2.78%
• YTD: 10.75%
• 6M: 9.24%
• 1Y: 31.59%
• 3Y*: 24.80%
• 5Y*: 13.39%
• 10Y*: 19.63%

BIBL

• 1D: -2.18%
• 1M: 4.42%
• YTD: 24.57%
• 6M: 23.10%
• 1Y: 40.13%
• 3Y*: 22.41%
• 5Y*: 10.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

ONEQ vs. BIBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ONEQ Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF	10.75%	20.89%	29.30%	45.73%	-32.12%	22.11%	44.87%	38.01%	-3.18%	3.19%
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	24.57%	17.27%	12.49%	17.87%	-23.26%	27.44%	22.62%	29.68%	-7.64%	4.42%

Correlation

The correlation between ONEQ and BIBL is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2017	0.82

The correlation between ONEQ and BIBL shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (1 year) to 0.82 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ONEQ vs. BIBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ONEQ	BIBL
Technology	54.3%	31.9%
Communication Services	15.4%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.7%	0.3%
Healthcare	4.7%	4.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.4%	0.4%
Financial Services	2.9%	8.5%
Industrials	2.9%	27.2%
Basic Materials	0.9%	4.3%
Utilities	0.8%	3.3%
Real Estate	0.6%	13.7%
Energy	0.5%	6.0%

Return for Risk

ONEQ vs. BIBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

ONEQ

ONEQ Risk / Return Rank: 54
ONEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
ONEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
ONEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 53
ONEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
ONEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 56

BIBL

BIBL Risk / Return Rank: 82
BIBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
BIBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
BIBL Omega Ratio Rank: 76
BIBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
BIBL Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

ONEQ vs. BIBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). 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.

	ONEQ	BIBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.83	2.45	-0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	3.25	-0.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.42	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	4.51	-2.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.53	19.18	-9.65

ONEQ vs. BIBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ONEQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is comparable to the BIBL Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ONEQ and BIBL, 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

ONEQ vs. BIBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ONEQ drawdown since its inception was -55.09%, which is greater than BIBL's maximum drawdown of -36.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ONEQ and BIBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	ONEQ	BIBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.09%	-36.12%	-18.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.64%	-8.94%	-3.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.09%	-20.60%	-3.49%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.23%	-30.85%	-4.38%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.23%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.46%	-2.18%	-3.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.94%	-7.00%	-0.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.32%	2.10%	+1.22%

Volatility

ONEQ vs. BIBL - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF (ONEQ) has a higher volatility of 7.59% compared to Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL) at 6.91%. This indicates that ONEQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BIBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ONEQ	BIBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.59%	6.91%	+0.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.69%	13.67%	+0.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.41%	16.47%	+0.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.36%	19.76%	+2.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.79%	21.11%	+0.68%

ONEQ vs. BIBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

ONEQ has a 0.21% expense ratio, which is lower than BIBL's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

ONEQ vs. BIBL - Dividend Comparison

ONEQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%, less than BIBL's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	0.95%	1.01%	0.92%	1.02%	0.98%	17.87%	1.67%	1.30%	1.49%	0.31%	0.00%	0.00%
ONEQ Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index ETF	0.73%	0.54%	0.65%	0.71%	0.97%	0.54%	0.71%	2.51%	1.08%	0.84%	1.12%	1.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ONEQ and BIBL in my portfolio?

ONEQ and BIBL have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ONEQ or BIBL?

ONEQ has higher volatility (7.59%) compared to BIBL (6.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ONEQ dropped -55.09% vs BIBL's -36.12%.

Which ETF is better, ONEQ or BIBL?

On 5-year performance, ONEQ leads with 13.39% vs 10.30% for BIBL. On fees, ONEQ is cheaper at 0.21% per year. On volatility, BIBL has been the lower-risk option at 6.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ONEQ or BIBL?

Over the 5-year period, ONEQ has performed better with a 13.39% return vs 10.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ONEQ or BIBL?

ONEQ is cheaper with a 0.21% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for BIBL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ONEQ or BIBL?

BIBL has the higher dividend yield at 0.95%, compared with 0.73% for ONEQ.

What is the main difference between ONEQ and BIBL?

ONEQ tracks Nasdaq Composite Index, while BIBL tracks Inspire 100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Inspire. Their fees differ too: 0.21% for ONEQ and 0.35% for BIBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.45 vs 1.83), 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.