SETM vs. FMAT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

SETM (Sprott Critical Materials ETF) and FMAT (Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF) are both Materials funds - SETM tracks the Nasdaq Sprott Critical Materials Index while FMAT tracks the MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, SETM returned 25.14%/yr vs 11.22%/yr for FMAT. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SETM charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for FMAT.

Performance

SETM vs. FMAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM) and Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with SETM having a 11.16% return and FMAT slightly lower at 11.09%.

SETM

• 1D: -4.08%
• 1M: -8.14%
• YTD: 11.16%
• 6M: 8.97%
• 1Y: 95.17%
• 3Y*: 25.14%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FMAT

• 1D: -1.81%
• 1M: 0.83%
• YTD: 11.09%
• 6M: 9.58%
• 1Y: 20.54%
• 3Y*: 11.22%
• 5Y*: 6.71%
• 10Y*: 10.45%

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

SETM vs. FMAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SETM Sprott Critical Materials ETF	11.16%	95.27%	-13.24%	-13.11%
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	11.09%	12.11%	0.47%	2.76%

Correlation

The correlation between SETM and FMAT is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 2, 2023	0.63

The correlation between SETM and FMAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

SETM vs. FMAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SETM	FMAT
Basic Materials	76.0%	89.8%
Energy	22.9%	0.5%
Industrials	1.0%	0.1%
Technology	0.1%	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	0.1%	0.1%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	8.6%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	0.5%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

SETM vs. FMAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

SETM

SETM Risk / Return Rank: 61
SETM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
SETM Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
SETM Omega Ratio Rank: 53
SETM Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
SETM Martin Ratio Rank: 62

FMAT

FMAT Risk / Return Rank: 32
FMAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
FMAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
FMAT Omega Ratio Rank: 30
FMAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
FMAT Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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.

SETM vs. FMAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM) and Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT). 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.

	SETM	FMAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.05	1.12	+0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.41	1.65	+0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.20	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.70	1.53	+2.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.56	4.86	+5.71

SETM vs. FMAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SETM Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is higher than the FMAT Sharpe Ratio of 1.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SETM and FMAT, 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

SETM vs. FMAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SETM drawdown since its inception was -42.81%, roughly equal to the maximum FMAT drawdown of -41.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SETM and FMAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	SETM	FMAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.81%	-41.11%	-1.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.85%	-13.48%	-12.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-42.81%	-23.17%	-19.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.40%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.11%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.00%	-5.63%	-13.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.03%	-6.87%	-8.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.04%	4.24%	+4.80%

Volatility

SETM vs. FMAT - Volatility Comparison

Sprott Critical Materials ETF (SETM) has a higher volatility of 17.16% compared to Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) at 6.66%. This indicates that SETM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FMAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SETM	FMAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.16%	6.66%	+10.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	37.55%	14.85%	+22.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	46.69%	18.48%	+28.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.23%	19.69%	+17.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.23%	21.22%	+16.01%

SETM vs. FMAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

SETM has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than FMAT's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

SETM vs. FMAT - Dividend Comparison

SETM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%, less than FMAT's 1.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FMAT Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF	1.43%	1.64%	1.68%	1.71%	2.00%	1.44%	1.73%	1.89%	2.18%	1.53%	1.78%	2.16%
SETM Sprott Critical Materials ETF	1.41%	1.56%	2.07%	2.47%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SETM and FMAT in my portfolio?

SETM and FMAT have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SETM or FMAT?

SETM has higher volatility (17.16%) compared to FMAT (6.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SETM dropped -42.81% vs FMAT's -41.11%.

Which ETF is better, SETM or FMAT?

On 3-year performance, SETM leads with 25.14% vs 11.22% for FMAT. On fees, FMAT is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, FMAT has been the lower-risk option at 6.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SETM or FMAT?

Over the 3-year period, SETM has performed better with a 25.14% return vs 11.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SETM or FMAT?

FMAT is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for SETM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SETM or FMAT?

FMAT has the higher dividend yield at 1.43%, compared with 1.41% for SETM.

What is the main difference between SETM and FMAT?

SETM tracks Nasdaq Sprott Critical Materials Index, while FMAT tracks MSCI USA IMI Materials Index. They also come from different issuers: Sprott and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for SETM and 0.08% for FMAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SETM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.12), 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.