TIME vs. FDFF

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

TIME (Clockwise Core Equity & Innovation ETF) and FDFF (Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TIME is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Clockwise Capital, while FDFF is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, TIME returned 14.72% vs -7.57% for FDFF. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TIME charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FDFF.

Performance

TIME vs. FDFF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Clockwise Core Equity & Innovation ETF (TIME) and Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF (FDFF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TIME achieves a 6.84% return, which is significantly higher than FDFF's -1.88% return.

TIME

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: 0.17%
• 6M: 4.98%
• YTD: 6.84%
• 1Y: 14.72%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FDFF

• 1D: 0.39%
• 1M: 6.98%
• 6M: -4.05%
• YTD: -1.88%
• 1Y: -7.57%
• 3Y*: 10.50%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TIME vs. FDFF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TIME Clockwise Core Equity & Innovation ETF	6.84%	10.17%	5.94%
FDFF Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF	-1.88%	-2.75%	25.79%

Correlation

The correlation between TIME and FDFF is 0.50, 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	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 24, 2024	0.61

The correlation between TIME and FDFF shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (1 year) to 0.61 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

TIME vs. FDFF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TIME	FDFF
Technology	41.1%	18.8%
Communication Services	15.4%	-
Financial Services	8.9%	75.4%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	0.8%
Energy	8.3%	-
Industrials	5.3%	4.2%
Basic Materials	5.3%	-
Utilities	4.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	-
Healthcare	0.5%	-
Real Estate	-	0.8%

Return for Risk

TIME vs. FDFF — Risk / Return Rank

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

TIME

TIME Risk / Return Rank: 33
TIME Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
TIME Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
TIME Omega Ratio Rank: 34
TIME Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
TIME Martin Ratio Rank: 34

FDFF

FDFF Risk / Return Rank: 6
FDFF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
FDFF Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
FDFF Omega Ratio Rank: 6
FDFF Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
FDFF Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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.

TIME vs. FDFF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Clockwise Core Equity & Innovation ETF (TIME) and Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF (FDFF). 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.

	TIME	FDFF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.06	-0.41	+1.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.49	-0.45	+1.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	0.95	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.13	-0.34	+1.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.96	-0.64	+4.61

TIME vs. FDFF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TIME Sharpe Ratio is 1.06, which is higher than the FDFF Sharpe Ratio of -0.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TIME and FDFF, 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

TIME vs. FDFF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TIME drawdown since its inception was -24.26%, which is greater than FDFF's maximum drawdown of -23.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TIME and FDFF.

Drawdown Indicators

	TIME	FDFF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.26%	-23.06%	-1.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.09%	-22.31%	+9.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.06%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.43%	-10.89%	+7.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.48%	-6.60%	+1.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.72%	11.77%	-8.05%

Volatility

TIME vs. FDFF - Volatility Comparison

Clockwise Core Equity & Innovation ETF (TIME) and Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF (FDFF) have volatilities of 4.57% and 4.75%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TIME	FDFF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.57%	4.75%	-0.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.34%	14.68%	-3.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.93%	18.59%	-4.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.61%	18.98%	-1.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.61%	18.98%	-1.37%

TIME vs. FDFF - Expense Ratio Comparison

TIME has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than FDFF's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

TIME vs. FDFF - Dividend Comparison

TIME's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.38%, more than FDFF's 1.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FDFF Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF	1.01%	0.86%	0.70%	0.27%
TIME Clockwise Core Equity & Innovation ETF	9.38%	10.02%	15.84%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TIME and FDFF in my portfolio?

TIME and FDFF have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TIME or FDFF?

FDFF has higher volatility (4.75%) compared to TIME (4.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TIME dropped -24.26% vs FDFF's -23.06%.

Which ETF is better, TIME or FDFF?

On 1-year performance, TIME leads with 14.72% vs -7.57% for FDFF. On fees, FDFF is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, TIME has been the lower-risk option at 4.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TIME or FDFF?

Over the 1-year period, TIME has performed better with a 14.72% return vs -7.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TIME or FDFF?

FDFF is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for TIME.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TIME or FDFF?

TIME has the higher dividend yield at 9.38%, compared with 1.01% for FDFF.

What is the main difference between TIME and FDFF?

TIME is categorized as Technology Equities, while FDFF is Financials Equities. They also come from different issuers: Clockwise Capital and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for TIME and 0.50% for FDFF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TIME currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.06 vs -0.41), 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.