SMOT vs. FFSM

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

SMOT (VanEck Morningstar SMID Moat ETF) and FFSM (Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. SMOT is passively managed, while FFSM is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, SMOT returned 11.44%/yr vs 22.71%/yr for FFSM. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SMOT charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for FFSM.

Performance

SMOT vs. FFSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Morningstar SMID Moat ETF (SMOT) and Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SMOT achieves a 7.25% return, which is significantly lower than FFSM's 24.27% return.

SMOT

• 1D: 0.92%
• 1M: 2.27%
• YTD: 7.25%
• 6M: 5.90%
• 1Y: 14.97%
• 3Y*: 11.44%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FFSM

• 1D: 1.47%
• 1M: 5.22%
• YTD: 24.27%
• 6M: 21.19%
• 1Y: 43.07%
• 3Y*: 22.71%
• 5Y*: 11.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

SMOT vs. FFSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
SMOT VanEck Morningstar SMID Moat ETF	7.25%	6.46%	10.71%	17.31%	3.85%
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	24.27%	14.89%	14.38%	17.30%	3.05%

Correlation

The correlation between SMOT and FFSM is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2022	0.89

The correlation between SMOT and FFSM shifts across timeframes, from 0.78 (1 year) to 0.89 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

SMOT vs. FFSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SMOT	FFSM
Technology	22.2%	14.0%
Healthcare	18.8%	9.1%
Consumer Cyclical	13.4%	12.2%
Industrials	11.7%	29.5%
Consumer Defensive	7.9%	2.3%
Basic Materials	7.6%	6.2%
Financial Services	5.9%	22.7%
Energy	4.5%	2.2%
Utilities	2.7%	1.8%
Real Estate	2.6%	0.0%
Communication Services	2.4%	-

Return for Risk

SMOT vs. FFSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

SMOT

SMOT Risk / Return Rank: 34
SMOT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
SMOT Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
SMOT Omega Ratio Rank: 29
SMOT Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
SMOT Martin Ratio Rank: 38

FFSM

FFSM Risk / Return Rank: 84
FFSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FFSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FFSM Omega Ratio Rank: 78
FFSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FFSM Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

SMOT vs. FFSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Morningstar SMID Moat ETF (SMOT) and Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM). 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.

	SMOT	FFSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	2.32	-1.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.62	3.21	-1.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.40	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.69	4.17	-2.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.37	16.79	-11.43

SMOT vs. FFSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SMOT Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is lower than the FFSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SMOT and FFSM, 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

SMOT vs. FFSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SMOT drawdown since its inception was -23.36%, smaller than the maximum FFSM drawdown of -26.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SMOT and FFSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	SMOT	FFSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.36%	-26.65%	+3.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.91%	-10.37%	+1.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.36%	-24.78%	+1.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.65%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.73%	0.00%	-0.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.78%	-7.78%	+3.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.80%	2.57%	+0.23%

Volatility

SMOT vs. FFSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Morningstar SMID Moat ETF (SMOT) is 4.87%, while Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) has a volatility of 6.31%. This indicates that SMOT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SMOT	FFSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.87%	6.31%	-1.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.14%	14.69%	-4.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.32%	18.64%	-4.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.43%	20.77%	-2.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.43%	20.61%	-2.18%

SMOT vs. FFSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

SMOT has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than FFSM's 0.43% expense ratio.

Dividends

SMOT vs. FFSM - Dividend Comparison

SMOT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%, more than FFSM's 0.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.43%	0.56%	0.62%	0.56%	0.58%	0.37%
SMOT VanEck Morningstar SMID Moat ETF	1.28%	1.37%	1.18%	0.65%	0.24%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SMOT and FFSM in my portfolio?

SMOT and FFSM have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SMOT or FFSM?

FFSM has higher volatility (6.31%) compared to SMOT (4.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SMOT dropped -23.36% vs FFSM's -26.65%.

Which ETF is better, SMOT or FFSM?

On 3-year performance, FFSM leads with 22.71% vs 11.44% for SMOT. On fees, FFSM is cheaper at 0.43% per year. On volatility, SMOT has been the lower-risk option at 4.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SMOT or FFSM?

Over the 3-year period, FFSM has performed better with a 22.71% return vs 11.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SMOT or FFSM?

FFSM is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for SMOT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SMOT or FFSM?

SMOT has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 0.43% for FFSM.

What is the main difference between SMOT and FFSM?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for SMOT and 0.43% for FFSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 1.05), 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.