PlainIndex

ETF comparison

FMAT vs XME

Both Materials.

Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF · State Street SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF

Holdings overlap

0.0 %

0 positions appear in both funds. Buying equal dollars of FMAT and XME would leave roughly 0.0% of each dollar exposed to the same underlying securities.

FMAT only 0.0% Shared 0.0% XME only 0.0%
In FMAT only
0 positions
Shared
0 positions
In XME only
0 positions

Holdings data for FMAT covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Holdings data for XME covers 0.0% of fund weight. The remainder lacks matchable identifiers in the N-PORT filing.

Side by side

FMAT

Fidelity MSCI Materials Index ETF

Fidelity · Materials

76 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.084%
Net assets
$603.2M
TTM yield
1.43%
Top-10 conc.
—
XME

State Street SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF

State Street · Materials

76 composite / 100
Expense ratio
0.35%
Net assets
$5.30B
TTM yield
0.32%
Top-10 conc.
—

Sub-score comparison

92
Cost
65
80
Tax efficiency
84
47
Liquidity
88
N/A
Concentration
N/A
—
Tracking quality
—
FMAT sub-score XME

Tracking-quality sub-score is not yet computed for any fund — see methodology for which inputs are live.

Cost difference

FMAT is 27 bps cheaper than XME. On a $100,000 position that's about $266/yr more in fees for XME.

Fee figure is the annual expense charged on $100,000. It compounds over time — we publish a fuller cost-projection calculator on the methodology page.

Top shared holdings

0 shared in total

No shared holdings between these funds.

Only in FMAT

0 total

Every FMAT position is also held by XME.

Only in XME

0 total

Every XME position is also held by FMAT.

Holdings overlap is the sum of min(weight_a, weight_b) over positions matched on ISIN (CUSIP fallback). Methodology: see /methodology/.

Comparing two funds doesn't endorse swapping one for the other. Tax-lot history, account type, and personal goals matter — PlainIndex publishes data and methodology, not investment advice.