FMAT vs QQQ
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF vs Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1
Quick Verdict
FMAT has a lower expense ratio. QQQ delivered stronger 1-year returns. QQQ offers more diversification with 103 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FMAT | QQQ | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.08% | 0.18% | |
| AUM | $624M | $455.8B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.43% | 0.41% | |
| Holdings | 106 | 108 | |
| YTD Return | +12.38% | +18.31% | |
| 1Y Return | +18.01% | +25.37% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +10.64% | +25.79% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.36% | +15.20% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 19.1% | 30.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -43.9% | -83.0% | |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | Invesco (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Oct 21, 2013 | Mar 10, 1999 |
FMAT vs QQQ Performance
Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF (FMAT) is a ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (QQQ) is a ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year FMAT returned +18.01% while QQQ returned +25.37%. Year to date, FMAT is up 12.38% versus a gain of 18.31% for QQQ.
Over three years, FMAT compounded at +10.64% per year against +25.79% for QQQ; over five years the annualized figures are +6.36% and +15.20% respectively. Across the full 13-year window we track, QQQ has the edge at +13.10% annualized vs +7.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QQQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.6% compared with 19.1% for FMAT. 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 -83.0% for QQQ. 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 0.65. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FMAT charges 0.08% per year while QQQ charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $8 vs $18 annually, a gap of $10 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FMAT currently yields 1.43% against 0.41% for QQQ.
Holdings Overlap
FMAT and QQQ share 1 holdings out of 204 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.1% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in FMAT | Weight in QQQ | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| LIN:IE | 14.87% | 1.07% | 13.80% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FMAT or QQQ?
FMAT has an expense ratio of 0.08% while QQQ charges 0.18%. FMAT is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $10 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FMAT or QQQ?
Over the past year FMAT returned +18.01% vs +25.37% for QQQ, so QQQ leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (13 years), FMAT annualized +7.81% vs +13.10% for QQQ. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FMAT or QQQ?
QQQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.6% annualized versus 19.1% for FMAT. Worst drawdown: FMAT -43.9% vs QQQ -83.0%.
Should I hold both FMAT and QQQ?
FMAT and QQQ have a monthly-return correlation of 0.65, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between FMAT and QQQ?
FMAT and QQQ share 1 common holdings with a 1.1% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 204 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FMAT or QQQ?
FMAT yields 1.43% while QQQ yields 0.41%, 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.