PLDR vs. FFLC

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

PLDR (Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF) and FFLC (Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PLDR is a Sustainable fund actively managed by Power Corporation of Canada, while FFLC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, PLDR returned 8.99%/yr vs 15.93%/yr for FFLC. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PLDR charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for FFLC.

Performance

PLDR vs. FFLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF (PLDR) and Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PLDR achieves a 1.69% return, which is significantly lower than FFLC's 9.11% return.

PLDR

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: -1.54%
• YTD: 1.69%
• 6M: 0.62%
• 1Y: 13.93%
• 3Y*: 17.17%
• 5Y*: 8.99%
• 10Y*: —

FFLC

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -0.09%
• YTD: 9.11%
• 6M: 7.95%
• 1Y: 22.66%
• 3Y*: 22.19%
• 5Y*: 15.93%
• 10Y*: —

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

PLDR vs. FFLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PLDR Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF	1.69%	12.03%	23.47%	27.47%	-22.52%	11.54%
FFLC Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF	9.11%	17.67%	27.89%	25.07%	-0.04%	3.13%

Correlation

The correlation between PLDR and FFLC is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2021	0.86

The correlation between PLDR and FFLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

PLDR vs. FFLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PLDR	FFLC
Technology	38.3%	32.5%
Communication Services	11.1%	10.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	9.7%
Financial Services	9.9%	11.6%
Industrials	8.4%	11.5%
Healthcare	7.5%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	4.6%
Utilities	3.4%	2.6%
Energy	3.1%	4.4%
Basic Materials	2.3%	1.7%
Real Estate	0.6%	1.1%

Return for Risk

PLDR vs. FFLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

PLDR

PLDR Risk / Return Rank: 35
PLDR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
PLDR Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
PLDR Omega Ratio Rank: 38
PLDR Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
PLDR Martin Ratio Rank: 34

FFLC

FFLC Risk / Return Rank: 55
FFLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
FFLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
FFLC Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FFLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
FFLC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

PLDR vs. FFLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF (PLDR) and Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC). 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.

	PLDR	FFLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	1.69	-0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	2.33	-0.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.31	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.23	2.28	-1.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.62	10.13	-5.51

PLDR vs. FFLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PLDR Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is comparable to the FFLC Sharpe Ratio of 1.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PLDR and FFLC, 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

PLDR vs. FFLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PLDR drawdown since its inception was -29.58%, which is greater than FFLC's maximum drawdown of -19.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PLDR and FFLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	PLDR	FFLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.58%	-19.72%	-9.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.81%	-9.98%	-2.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.00%	-19.72%	-3.28%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.58%	-19.72%	-9.86%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.21%	-2.42%	-0.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.57%	-2.97%	-5.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.40%	2.24%	+1.16%

Volatility

PLDR vs. FFLC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF (PLDR) is 3.62%, while Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) has a volatility of 5.32%. This indicates that PLDR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PLDR	FFLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.62%	5.32%	-1.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.83%	10.67%	-0.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.57%	13.54%	-0.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.10%	16.99%	+0.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.04%	17.68%	-0.64%

PLDR vs. FFLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

PLDR has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than FFLC's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

PLDR vs. FFLC - Dividend Comparison

PLDR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, less than FFLC's 1.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FFLC Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF	1.01%	1.10%	0.82%	0.57%	1.67%	1.68%	0.89%
PLDR Putnam Sustainable Leaders ETF	0.37%	0.37%	0.38%	0.56%	0.63%	0.39%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PLDR and FFLC in my portfolio?

PLDR and FFLC have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PLDR or FFLC?

FFLC has higher volatility (5.32%) compared to PLDR (3.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PLDR dropped -29.58% vs FFLC's -19.72%.

Which ETF is better, PLDR or FFLC?

On 5-year performance, FFLC leads with 15.93% vs 8.99% for PLDR. On fees, FFLC is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, PLDR has been the lower-risk option at 3.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PLDR or FFLC?

Over the 5-year period, FFLC has performed better with a 15.93% return vs 8.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PLDR or FFLC?

FFLC is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for PLDR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PLDR or FFLC?

FFLC has the higher dividend yield at 1.01%, compared with 0.37% for PLDR.

What is the main difference between PLDR and FFLC?

PLDR is categorized as Sustainable, while FFLC is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Power Corporation of Canada and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for PLDR and 0.38% for FFLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.69 vs 1.25), 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.