RMBKX vs. FAFCX
Compare and contrast key facts about RMB Mendon Financial Services Fund (RMBKX) and Fidelity Advisor Financial Services Fund Class C (FAFCX).
RMBKX is managed by BlackRock. It was launched on Jun 7, 1999. FAFCX is managed by BlackRock. It was launched on Nov 3, 1997.
Performance
RMBKX vs. FAFCX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
RMBKX vs. FAFCX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RMBKX RMB Mendon Financial Services Fund | -0.36% | 12.84% | 17.07% | 4.56% | -19.18% | 56.40% | -5.73% | 22.82% | -17.13% | 12.17% |
FAFCX Fidelity Advisor Financial Services Fund Class C | -9.61% | 14.05% | 37.55% | 13.19% | -9.63% | 31.91% | -1.00% | 32.80% | -16.73% | 19.64% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RMBKX achieves a -0.36% return, which is significantly higher than FAFCX's -9.61% return. Over the past 10 years, RMBKX has underperformed FAFCX with an annualized return of 9.85%, while FAFCX has yielded a comparatively higher 11.87% annualized return.
RMBKX
- 1D
- 0.25%
- 1M
- -3.80%
- YTD
- -0.36%
- 6M
- 10.76%
- 1Y
- 19.68%
- 3Y*
- 17.89%
- 5Y*
- 5.98%
- 10Y*
- 9.85%
FAFCX
- 1D
- 0.97%
- 1M
- -5.44%
- YTD
- -9.61%
- 6M
- -6.34%
- 1Y
- 3.57%
- 3Y*
- 19.56%
- 5Y*
- 10.13%
- 10Y*
- 11.87%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
RMBKX vs. FAFCX - Expense Ratio Comparison
RMBKX has a 1.27% expense ratio, which is lower than FAFCX's 1.79% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
RMBKX vs. FAFCX — Risk / Return Rank
RMBKX
FAFCX
RMBKX vs. FAFCX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RMB Mendon Financial Services Fund (RMBKX) and Fidelity Advisor Financial Services Fund Class C (FAFCX). 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.
| RMBKX | FAFCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.85 | 0.21 | +0.64 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.28 | 0.42 | +0.85 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | 1.06 | +0.11 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.48 | 0.16 | +1.32 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.29 | 0.50 | +3.79 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RMBKX | FAFCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.85 | 0.21 | +0.64 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.24 | 0.48 | -0.24 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.36 | 0.50 | -0.14 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.48 | 0.26 | +0.22 |
Correlation
The correlation between RMBKX and FAFCX is 0.83, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
RMBKX vs. FAFCX - Dividend Comparison
RMBKX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.24%, less than FAFCX's 7.38% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RMBKX RMB Mendon Financial Services Fund | 6.24% | 6.22% | 1.90% | 1.29% | 17.29% | 1.35% | 0.00% | 0.85% | 5.39% | 6.63% | 1.50% | 0.00% |
FAFCX Fidelity Advisor Financial Services Fund Class C | 7.38% | 6.67% | 9.04% | 1.58% | 5.50% | 3.78% | 1.85% | 0.45% | 3.33% | 0.00% | 0.01% | 0.28% |
Drawdowns
RMBKX vs. FAFCX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RMBKX drawdown since its inception was -55.45%, smaller than the maximum FAFCX drawdown of -76.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMBKX and FAFCX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| RMBKX | FAFCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.45% | -76.00% | +20.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.67% | -14.43% | +1.76% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -44.33% | -25.75% | -18.58% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -55.45% | -46.01% | -9.44% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.06% | -12.35% | +4.29% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.19% | -18.88% | +7.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.38% | 4.69% | -0.31% |
Volatility
RMBKX vs. FAFCX - Volatility Comparison
RMB Mendon Financial Services Fund (RMBKX) has a higher volatility of 4.82% compared to Fidelity Advisor Financial Services Fund Class C (FAFCX) at 4.53%. This indicates that RMBKX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FAFCX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| RMBKX | FAFCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.82% | 4.53% | +0.29% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.55% | 12.45% | +3.10% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.42% | 21.15% | +3.27% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.97% | 21.05% | +3.92% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.10% | 23.79% | +3.31% |