FMAT vs IVV
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. IVV delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FMAT | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.08% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $624M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.43% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 106 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +13.57% | +13.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +21.22% | +23.01% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +11.15% | +21.77% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.86% | +13.39% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.1% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -43.9% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Oct 21, 2013 | May 15, 2000 |
FMAT vs IVV Performance
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) is a ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FMAT returned +21.22% while IVV returned +23.01%. Year to date, FMAT is up 13.57% versus a gain of 13.80% for IVV.
Over three years, FMAT compounded at +11.15% per year against +21.77% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +6.86% and +13.39% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, FMAT has the edge at +7.90% annualized vs +7.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FMAT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.1% compared with 15.1% 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 -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.83. 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 1.43% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
FMAT and IVV share 21 holdings out of 586 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.5% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
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. On a $10,000 investment, that is $5 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FMAT or IVV?
Over the past year FMAT returned +21.22% vs +23.01% for IVV, so IVV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), FMAT annualized +7.90% vs +7.04% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FMAT or IVV?
FMAT has been the more volatile fund at 19.1% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FMAT -43.9% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FMAT and IVV?
FMAT and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.83, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between FMAT and IVV?
FMAT and IVV share 21 common holdings with a 1.5% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 586 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FMAT or IVV?
FMAT yields 1.43% while IVV yields 1.09%, so FMAT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.