FQAL vs SBIO
Fidelity Quality Factor ETF vs ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF
Quick Verdict
FQAL has a lower expense ratio. SBIO delivered stronger 1-year returns. FQAL offers more diversification with 130 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FQAL | SBIO | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.50% | |
| AUM | $1.4B | $221M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.15% | 0.00% | |
| Holdings | 130 | 107 | |
| YTD Return | +12.56% | +37.78% | |
| 1Y Return | +19.37% | +100.50% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.54% | +34.22% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.62% | +9.90% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0% | 29.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -34.1% | -63.1% | |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | ALPS Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 12, 2016 | Dec 30, 2014 |
FQAL vs SBIO Performance
Fidelity Quality Factor ETF (FQAL) is a ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors. Over the past year FQAL returned +19.37% while SBIO returned +100.50%. Year to date, FQAL is up 12.56% versus a gain of 37.78% for SBIO.
Over three years, FQAL compounded at +20.54% per year against +34.22% for SBIO; over five years the annualized figures are +11.62% and +9.90% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, FQAL has the edge at +13.76% annualized vs +9.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SBIO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 29.6% compared with 15.0% for FQAL. 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 -34.1% for FQAL and -63.1% for SBIO. 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 0.52. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FQAL charges 0.15% per year while SBIO charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $50 annually, a gap of $35 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FQAL currently yields 1.15% against 0.00% for SBIO.
Holdings Overlap
FQAL and SBIO share 0 holdings out of 230 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FQAL or SBIO?
FQAL has an expense ratio of 0.15% while SBIO charges 0.50%. FQAL is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $35 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FQAL or SBIO?
Over the past year FQAL returned +19.37% vs +100.50% for SBIO, so SBIO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), FQAL annualized +13.76% vs +9.97% for SBIO. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FQAL or SBIO?
SBIO has been the more volatile fund at 29.6% annualized versus 15.0% for FQAL. Worst drawdown: FQAL -34.1% vs SBIO -63.1%.
Should I hold both FQAL and SBIO?
FQAL and SBIO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.52, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between FQAL and SBIO?
FQAL and SBIO share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 230 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FQAL or SBIO?
FQAL yields 1.15% while SBIO yields 0.00%, so FQAL 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.