FMAT vs IVV
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, FMAT or IVV?
Mid Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.2%.
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 | FMAT | IVV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.08% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $579M | $876.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.37% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 104 | 508 |
| YTD Return | +6.16% | +14.15%Best |
| 1Y Return | +9.09% | +17.31%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.53% | +23.17%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.96% | +13.85%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.2% | 14.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -43.9% | -33.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,999 | $19,128Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.2% | 37.8%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 21, 2013 | May 15, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 24, 2013 to Sep 21, 2026 (12.9 years).
FMAT vs IVV 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 12.9 years both funds cover.
FMAT vs IVV Performance
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FMAT returned +9.09% while IVV returned +17.31%. Year to date, FMAT is up 6.16% versus a gain of 14.15% for IVV.
Over three years, FMAT compounded at +10.53% per year against +23.17% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +6.96% and +13.85% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, IVV has the edge at +12.87% annualized vs +7.27%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FMAT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.2% compared with 14.5% for IVV. 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 -43.9% for FMAT and -33.9% for IVV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FMAT charges 0.08% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $8 vs $3 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FMAT currently yields 1.37% against 1.06% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
65.9% of FMAT's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.6% of IVV's money is in holdings FMAT also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
23 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in FMAT and 490 in IVV, against full books of 104 and 508.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 460 positions for IVV that do not appear in our book for FMAT (97.1% of the fund), and 71 for FMAT that do not appear in IVV (20.1%).
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 FMAT | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| LINLinde Plc Ordinary Shares | 14.48% | 0.34% | 14.14% |
| NEMNewmont Corp Common | 8.53% | 0.20% | 8.33% |
| SHWSherwin Williams Co/the | 4.94% | 0.12% | 4.82% |
| ECLEcolab, Inc. | 4.59% | 0.11% | 4.48% |
| APDAir Products & Chemicals Inc. | 4.30% | 0.10% | 4.20% |
| CTVACorteva Inc Ctva | 3.62% | 0.09% | 3.53% |
| NUENucor Corp. | 3.54% | 0.09% | 3.45% |
| VMCVulcan Materials Co. | 2.24% | 0.05% | 2.19% |
| STLDSteel Dynamics, Inc. | 2.04% | 0.05% | 1.99% |
| MLMMartin Marietta Materials Inc. | 1.99% | 0.05% | 1.94% |
65.9% of FMAT is already inside IVV.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FMAT or IVV?
FMAT has an expense ratio of 0.08% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FMAT or IVV?
Over the past year FMAT returned +9.09% vs +17.31% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), FMAT annualized +7.27% vs +12.87% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FMAT or IVV?
FMAT has been the more volatile fund at 19.2% annualized versus 14.5% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FMAT -43.9% vs IVV -33.9%.
Should I hold both FMAT and IVV?
FMAT and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FMAT and IVV?
65.9% of FMAT's money is in holdings IVV also owns. 1.6% of IVV's is in holdings FMAT also owns. They hold 23 positions in common, counted across the 102 positions we hold weights for in FMAT and 490 in IVV.
Which pays a higher dividend, FMAT or IVV?
FMAT yields 1.37% while IVV yields 1.06%, so FMAT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IVV better than FMAT?
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. IVV is less concentrated, with 37.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.