PBD vs. FMED

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

PBD (Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF) and FMED (Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PBD is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation index, while FMED is a Health & Biotech Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. PBD is passively managed, while FMED is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PBD returned 4.61%/yr vs 0.73%/yr for FMED. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PBD charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FMED.

Performance

PBD vs. FMED - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF (PBD) and Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PBD achieves a 28.03% return, which is significantly higher than FMED's -4.75% return.

PBD

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: -3.12%
• YTD: 28.03%
• 6M: 27.73%
• 1Y: 72.58%
• 3Y*: 4.61%
• 5Y*: -5.27%
• 10Y*: 9.10%

FMED

• 1D: 0.90%
• 1M: 7.10%
• YTD: -4.75%
• 6M: -6.17%
• 1Y: 8.53%
• 3Y*: 0.73%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PBD vs. FMED - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PBD Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF	28.03%	43.65%	-26.39%	-12.01%
FMED Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF	-4.75%	9.69%	2.29%	-3.59%

Correlation

The correlation between PBD and FMED is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2023	0.52

The correlation between PBD and FMED has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.44 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

PBD vs. FMED - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PBD	FMED
Industrials	44.4%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.5%	-
Energy	12.2%	-
Utilities	11.7%	-
Technology	7.3%	0.9%
Basic Materials	3.2%	-
Financial Services	1.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.9%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	97.1%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

PBD vs. FMED — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBD

PBD Risk / Return Rank: 89
PBD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
PBD Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
PBD Omega Ratio Rank: 85
PBD Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
PBD Martin Ratio Rank: 91

FMED

FMED Risk / Return Rank: 15
FMED Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
FMED Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FMED Omega Ratio Rank: 15
FMED Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
FMED Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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.

PBD vs. FMED - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF (PBD) and Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED). 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.

	PBD	FMED	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.95	0.44	+2.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.52	0.79	+2.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.09	+0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.71	0.47	+5.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.24	1.03	+18.20

PBD vs. FMED - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBD Sharpe Ratio is 2.95, which is higher than the FMED Sharpe Ratio of 0.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBD and FMED, 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

PBD vs. FMED - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBD drawdown since its inception was -78.60%, which is greater than FMED's maximum drawdown of -21.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBD and FMED.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBD	FMED	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.60%	-21.84%	-56.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.78%	-18.33%	+5.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-52.45%	-21.84%	-30.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-69.15%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-75.40%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-43.63%	-10.64%	-32.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-53.37%	-7.09%	-46.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.78%	8.27%	-4.49%

Volatility

PBD vs. FMED - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF (PBD) has a higher volatility of 10.96% compared to Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF (FMED) at 7.50%. This indicates that PBD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FMED based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBD	FMED	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.96%	7.50%	+3.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.02%	15.01%	+4.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.81%	19.37%	+5.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.59%	18.57%	+10.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.35%	18.57%	+8.78%

PBD vs. FMED - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBD has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than FMED's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBD vs. FMED - Dividend Comparison

PBD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.76%, while FMED has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FMED Fidelity Disruptive Medicine ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.46%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PBD Invesco Global Clean Energy ETF	1.76%	2.71%	1.81%	2.85%	2.98%	0.67%	0.48%	1.83%	1.86%	1.76%	2.04%	1.24%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBD and FMED in my portfolio?

PBD and FMED have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PBD or FMED?

PBD has higher volatility (10.96%) compared to FMED (7.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBD dropped -78.60% vs FMED's -21.84%.

Which ETF is better, PBD or FMED?

On 3-year performance, PBD leads with 4.61% vs 0.73% for FMED. On fees, FMED is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FMED has been the lower-risk option at 7.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBD or FMED?

Over the 3-year period, PBD has performed better with a 4.61% return vs 0.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBD or FMED?

FMED is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for PBD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PBD or FMED?

PBD has the higher dividend yield at 1.76%, compared with 0.00% for FMED.

What is the main difference between PBD and FMED?

PBD is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while FMED is Health & Biotech Equities. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for PBD and 0.50% for FMED.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.95 vs 0.44), 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.