ECML vs FFLV
Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF vs Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF
Which is better, ECML or FFLV?
Each has led over a different period.
FFLV has a lower expense ratio. ECML led over 1Y, FFLV over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. ECML is less concentrated, with 20.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ECML | FFLV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.95% | 0.38%Best |
| AUM | $126M | $18M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.17% | 1.36% |
| Holdings | 130 | 230 |
| YTD Return | +20.08%Best | +15.67% |
| 1Y Return | +25.46%Best | +22.35% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.91% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.2% | 12.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -25.4% | -16.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.6 years | $12,955 | $14,509Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 20.7%Best | 33.3% |
| Fund Family | Euclidean Technologies | Fidelity Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | May 18, 2023 | Feb 9, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.6 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 26, 2024 to Oct 15, 2026 (2.6 years).
ECML vs FFLV growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 2.6 years both funds cover.
ECML vs FFLV Performance
Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) is an ETF from Euclidean Technologies and Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Value ETF (FFLV) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US). Over the past year ECML returned +25.46% while FFLV returned +22.35%. Year to date, ECML is up 20.08% versus a gain of 15.67% for FFLV.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ECML has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 12.5% for FFLV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -25.4% for ECML and -16.7% for FFLV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ECML charges 0.95% per year while FFLV charges 0.38%. On a $10,000 position that is $95 vs $38 annually, a gap of $57 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ECML currently yields 1.17% against 1.36% for FFLV.
Holdings Overlap
12.8% of ECML's money is in holdings FFLV also owns. 3.9% of FFLV's money is in holdings ECML also owns.
ECML and FFLV share little of their money.
8 positions in common, counted across the 64 positions we hold weights for in ECML and 115 in FFLV, against full books of 130 and 230.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 94 positions for FFLV that do not appear in our book for ECML (87.3% of the fund), and 55 for ECML that do not appear in FFLV (85.6%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ECML | Weight in FFLV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALSNAllison Transmission Holdings Inc. | 1.98% | 0.59% | 1.39% |
| HRBH&R Block Inc | 1.90% | 0.59% | 1.31% |
| ARWArrow Electronics Inc. | 1.54% | 0.78% | 0.76% |
| MOHMolina Healthcare Inc | 1.64% | 0.42% | 1.22% |
| OSKOshkosh Corp. | 1.84% | 0.12% | 1.72% |
| NEMNewmont Corp Common | 1.62% | 0.30% | 1.32% |
| PHMPultegroup Inc. | 1.09% | 0.64% | 0.45% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 1.22% | 0.45% | 0.77% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ECML and FFLV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ECML or FFLV?
ECML has an expense ratio of 0.95% while FFLV charges 0.38%. FFLV is the cheaper option, by $57 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ECML or FFLV?
Over the past year ECML returned +25.46% vs +22.35% for FFLV, so ECML leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ECML or FFLV?
ECML has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 12.5% for FFLV. Worst drawdown: ECML -25.4% vs FFLV -16.7%.
Should I hold both ECML and FFLV?
ECML and FFLV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ECML and FFLV?
12.8% of ECML's money is in holdings FFLV also owns. 3.9% of FFLV's is in holdings ECML also owns. They hold 8 positions in common, counted across the 64 positions we hold weights for in ECML and 115 in FFLV.
Which pays a higher dividend, ECML or FFLV?
ECML yields 1.17% while FFLV yields 1.36%, so FFLV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FFLV better than ECML?
FFLV has a lower expense ratio. ECML led over 1Y, FFLV over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. ECML is less concentrated, with 20.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 33.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.