FSCC vs OMFS
Federated Hermes MDT Small Cap Core ETF vs Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF
Which is better, FSCC or OMFS?
FSCC has been ahead.
FSCC has a lower expense ratio. FSCC led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. FSCC is less concentrated, with 11.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 12.0%.
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 | FSCC | OMFS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.36%Best | 0.39% |
| AUM | $427M | $264M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.24% | 1.30% |
| Holdings | 622 | 2,228 |
| YTD Return | +10.38%Best | +8.89% |
| 1Y Return | +12.30%Best | +10.32% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +14.55% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +4.67% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.4% | 15.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -27.2% | -22.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.2 years | $13,065Best | $12,621 |
| Top 10 Weight | 11.8%Best | 12.0% |
| Fund Family | Federated Hermes | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 30, 2024 | Nov 8, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 31, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.2 years).
FSCC vs OMFS 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 2.2 years both funds cover.
FSCC vs OMFS Performance
Federated Hermes MDT Small Cap Core ETF (FSCC) is an ETF from Federated Hermes and Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFS) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year FSCC returned +12.30% while OMFS returned +10.32%. Year to date, FSCC is up 10.38% versus a gain of 8.89% for OMFS.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FSCC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.4% compared with 15.6% for OMFS. 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 -27.2% for FSCC and -22.4% for OMFS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FSCC charges 0.36% per year while OMFS charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $36 vs $39 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FSCC currently yields 0.24% against 1.30% for OMFS.
Holdings Overlap
58.0% of FSCC's money is in holdings OMFS also owns. 27.4% of OMFS's money is in holdings FSCC also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
175 positions in common, counted across the 310 positions we hold weights for in FSCC and 933 in OMFS, against full books of 622 and 2,228.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 716 positions for OMFS that do not appear in our book for FSCC (66.8% of the fund), and 125 for FSCC that do not appear in OMFS (39.7%).
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 FSCC | Weight in OMFS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MYRGMyrgroupinc. | 0.62% | 1.20% | 0.58% |
| SSRMSsr Mining Inc | 0.37% | 1.42% | 1.05% |
| KLICKulicke & Soffa Industries | 0.90% | 0.84% | 0.06% |
| HGHamilton Insurance Group Ltd. Class B | 1.11% | 0.20% | 0.91% |
| VCTRVictory Receivables Corp | 0.36% | 0.92% | 0.56% |
| SLDESlide Insurance Holdings, Inc. | 1.11% | 0.16% | 0.95% |
| ZWSZurn Elkay Water Solutions | 0.65% | 0.60% | 0.05% |
| OUTOutfront Media Inccommon Stock | 0.70% | 0.49% | 0.21% |
| KRYSKrystal Biotech Inc | 0.21% | 0.98% | 0.77% |
| INDV:MBIndivior Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Ordinary Shares | 1.02% | 0.11% | 0.91% |
58.0% of FSCC is already inside OMFS.
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, FSCC or OMFS?
FSCC has an expense ratio of 0.36% while OMFS charges 0.39%. FSCC is the cheaper option, by $3 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FSCC or OMFS?
Over the past year FSCC returned +12.30% vs +10.32% for OMFS, so FSCC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), FSCC annualized +12.92% vs +11.16% for OMFS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FSCC or OMFS?
FSCC has been the more volatile fund at 18.4% annualized versus 15.6% for OMFS. Worst drawdown: FSCC -27.2% vs OMFS -22.4%.
Should I hold both FSCC and OMFS?
FSCC and OMFS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 FSCC and OMFS?
58.0% of FSCC's money is in holdings OMFS also owns. 27.4% of OMFS's is in holdings FSCC also owns. They hold 175 positions in common, counted across the 310 positions we hold weights for in FSCC and 933 in OMFS.
Which pays a higher dividend, FSCC or OMFS?
FSCC yields 0.24% while OMFS yields 1.30%, so OMFS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is OMFS better than FSCC?
FSCC has a lower expense ratio. FSCC led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. FSCC is less concentrated, with 11.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 12.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.