AFSM vs FESM
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF vs Fidelity Enhanced Small Cap Core ETF
Which is better, AFSM or FESM?
Nearly the same fund. FESM costs less.
FESM has a lower expense ratio. AFSM led over 1Y, FESM over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. FESM is less concentrated, with 7.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 8.4%.
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 | AFSM | FESM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.28%Best |
| AUM | $130M | $6.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.52% | 0.87% |
| Holdings | 657 | 875 |
| YTD Return | +19.57%Best | +17.52% |
| 1Y Return | +23.10%Best | +21.75% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.42% | +22.94%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.06% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.5%Best | 19.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -25.1%Best | -26.9% |
| $10,000 over 2.9 years | $16,352 | $18,202Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 8.4% | 7.1%Best |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Fidelity Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 4, 2019 | Nov 20, 2023 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 20, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.9 years).
AFSM vs FESM 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 2.9 years both funds cover.
AFSM vs FESM Performance
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF (AFSM) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Fidelity Enhanced Small Cap Core ETF (FESM) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US). Over the past year AFSM returned +23.10% while FESM returned +21.75%. Year to date, AFSM is up 19.57% versus a gain of 17.52% for FESM.
Over three years, AFSM compounded at +19.42% per year against +22.94% for FESM.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FESM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 19.7% compared with 17.5% for AFSM. 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 -25.1% for AFSM and -26.9% for FESM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AFSM charges 0.75% per year while FESM charges 0.28%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $28 annually, a gap of $47 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AFSM currently yields 0.52% against 0.87% for FESM.
Holdings Overlap
54.4% of AFSM's money is in holdings FESM also owns. 29.1% of FESM's money is in holdings AFSM also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
174 positions in common, counted across the 321 positions we hold weights for in AFSM and 883 in FESM, against full books of 657 and 875.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 572 positions for FESM that do not appear in our book for AFSM (68.2% of the fund), and 136 for AFSM that do not appear in FESM (40.2%).
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 AFSM | Weight in FESM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ENSEnersys Common Stock Usd 0.01 | 0.59% | 0.72% | 0.13% |
| ANFAbercrombie & Fitch Co. Class A | 0.78% | 0.46% | 0.32% |
| PARRPar Petroleum Corp | 1.17% | 0.04% | 1.13% |
| ECPGEncore Capital Group Inc | 0.64% | 0.51% | 0.13% |
| GHGuardant Health Inc | 0.60% | 0.54% | 0.06% |
| MXLMaxlinear | 0.45% | 0.68% | 0.23% |
| BTSGBrightspring Health Services Inc | 0.56% | 0.57% | 0.01% |
| TNKTeekay Tankers Ltd Common Stock Temp Line | 0.84% | 0.24% | 0.60% |
| HRMYHarmony Biosciences, Llc | 0.55% | 0.47% | 0.08% |
| AAMIAcadian Asset Management Inc | 0.68% | 0.32% | 0.36% |
54.4% of AFSM is already inside FESM.
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, AFSM or FESM?
AFSM has an expense ratio of 0.75% while FESM charges 0.28%. FESM is the cheaper option, by $47 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, AFSM or FESM?
Over the past year AFSM returned +23.10% vs +21.75% for FESM, so AFSM leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, AFSM or FESM?
FESM has been the more volatile fund at 19.7% annualized versus 17.5% for AFSM. Worst drawdown: AFSM -25.1% vs FESM -26.9%.
Should I hold both AFSM and FESM?
AFSM and FESM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 AFSM and FESM?
54.4% of AFSM's money is in holdings FESM also owns. 29.1% of FESM's is in holdings AFSM also owns. They hold 174 positions in common, counted across the 321 positions we hold weights for in AFSM and 883 in FESM.
Which pays a higher dividend, AFSM or FESM?
AFSM yields 0.52% while FESM yields 0.87%, so FESM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FESM better than AFSM?
FESM has a lower expense ratio. AFSM led over 1Y, FESM over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. FESM is less concentrated, with 7.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 8.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.