XMHQ vs. FFSM

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) and FFSM (Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. XMHQ is passively managed, while FFSM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, XMHQ returned 9.31%/yr vs 11.30%/yr for FFSM. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XMHQ charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for FFSM.

Performance

XMHQ vs. FFSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) 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, XMHQ achieves a 8.86% return, which is significantly lower than FFSM's 24.27% return.

XMHQ

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 1.28%
• YTD: 8.86%
• 6M: 6.41%
• 1Y: 15.81%
• 3Y*: 15.19%
• 5Y*: 9.31%
• 10Y*: 13.41%

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)

XMHQ vs. FFSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	8.86%	4.71%	16.79%	29.51%	-12.42%	14.51%
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	24.27%	14.89%	14.38%	17.30%	-16.35%	20.44%

Correlation

The correlation between XMHQ and FFSM 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	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2021	0.94

The correlation between XMHQ and FFSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMHQ vs. FFSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMHQ	FFSM
Industrials	25.9%	29.5%
Healthcare	20.4%	9.1%
Financial Services	14.3%	22.7%
Technology	13.5%	14.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	12.2%
Energy	5.9%	2.2%
Basic Materials	5.0%	6.2%
Consumer Defensive	3.4%	2.3%
Communication Services	2.7%	-
Utilities	2.2%	1.8%
Real Estate	-	0.0%

Return for Risk

XMHQ vs. FFSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMHQ

XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 34
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 28
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
XMHQ 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.

XMHQ vs. FFSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) 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.

	XMHQ	FFSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.01	2.32	-1.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.56	3.21	-1.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.40	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.79	4.17	-2.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.23	16.79	-11.56

XMHQ vs. FFSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMHQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.01, which is lower than the FFSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMHQ 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

XMHQ vs. FFSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMHQ drawdown since its inception was -58.19%, which is greater than FFSM's maximum drawdown of -26.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMHQ and FFSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMHQ	FFSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.19%	-26.65%	-31.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.85%	-10.37%	+1.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.56%	-24.78%	+0.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.47%	-26.65%	+1.18%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.27%	0.00%	-1.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.26%	-7.78%	-1.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.03%	2.57%	+0.46%

Volatility

XMHQ vs. FFSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) is 4.31%, while Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF (FFSM) has a volatility of 6.31%. This indicates that XMHQ 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

	XMHQ	FFSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.31%	6.31%	-2.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.44%	14.69%	-3.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.74%	18.64%	-2.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.73%	20.77%	-0.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.68%	20.61%	+0.07%

XMHQ vs. FFSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMHQ has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than FFSM's 0.43% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMHQ vs. FFSM - Dividend Comparison

XMHQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.58%, more than FFSM's 0.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FFSM Fidelity Fundamental Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.43%	0.56%	0.62%	0.56%	0.58%	0.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	0.58%	0.64%	5.20%	0.73%	1.72%	1.00%	1.12%	1.22%	1.59%	1.06%	1.63%	1.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XMHQ and FFSM in my portfolio?

XMHQ and FFSM 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, XMHQ or FFSM?

FFSM has higher volatility (6.31%) compared to XMHQ (4.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMHQ dropped -58.19% vs FFSM's -26.65%.

Which ETF is better, XMHQ or FFSM?

On 5-year performance, FFSM leads with 11.30% vs 9.31% for XMHQ. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, XMHQ has been the lower-risk option at 4.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XMHQ or FFSM?

Over the 5-year period, FFSM has performed better with a 11.30% return vs 9.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMHQ or FFSM?

XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.43% for FFSM.

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

XMHQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.58%, compared with 0.43% for FFSM.

What is the main difference between XMHQ and FFSM?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMHQ and 0.43% for FFSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 1.01), 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.