FDIS vs ITB: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF (FDIS) and iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) — both Consumer Discretionary funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 29, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
FDIS and ITB compete directly — both are Consumer Discretionary funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — FDIS scores higher: 42.5 (Grade D) versus 35.2 for ITB. That doesn't make ITB a bad fund; it means FDIS currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| FDIS | ITB | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Consumer Discretionary | Consumer Discretionary |
| Expense ratio | 0.08% | 0.38% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $1.7B | $2.6B |
| Dividend yield | 0.72% | 0.62% |
| 1-year return | +2.85% | +0.54% |
| 3-year return | +38.13% | +16.78% |
| Volatility | 19.27% | 29.33% |
| Max drawdown | -27.43% | -33.35% |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.11 | -0.15 |
| ETFValuer score | 42.5 | 35.2 |
| Grade | D | D |
| Overall rank | #412 | #434 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
FDIS is the cheaper fund, charging 0.08% a year versus 0.38% for ITB — a gap of 0.30 percentage points (about $29.60/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What ITB's Fees Cost You
ITB charges an expense ratio of 0.38% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, FDIS returned +38.13% versus +16.78% for ITB — a gap of about 21.4 percentage points. On risk, FDIS has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-27.43% vs. -33.35%). FDIS currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of -0.11 vs. -0.15), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (750 shared trading days), FDIS and ITB show a moderate correlation of 0.610 — related but meaningfully different. That's loose enough that the two funds do behave differently in a meaningful share of market conditions — holding both is defensible if you want exposure to each mandate.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.610 | Moderate — related but meaningfully different |
| R-squared | 37.3% | 37.3% of FDIS's daily moves are explained by ITB's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 22.90% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | FDIS +10.37% · ITB +5.20% | FDIS ahead by 5.17 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, FDIS finished as much as +35.7 points ahead of ITB at the best extreme and -45.5 points at the worst — a 81.2-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
FDIS and ITB hold 1 of the same companies among their top 10 positions. Those shared names make up 4.4% of FDIS and 4.4% of ITB. That's modest duplication — the funds are mostly distinct at the top, so holding both can still add diversification.
| Shared Holding | FDIS Weight | ITB Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Home Depot Inc/The | 4.44% | 4.42% |
Compares the top 10 reported holdings from each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing, so it understates total overlap — funds tracking similar indexes overlap far more deeply than the top 10 alone can show. Search any company across all tracked funds with the Stock Overlap tool.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean FDIS if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.08% vs 0.38%, about $30 a year less on a $10,000 position
- Current income matters to you — it yields 0.72% against 0.62%
- It has been the calmer ride (19.3% volatility vs 29.3%) with a shallower worst-case fall (-27.4% vs -33.4%)
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 38.1% over 3 years against 16.8%
Lean ITB if…
- You prefer to keep holdings under one roof at iShares
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is FDIS or ITB better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — FDIS scores higher: 42.5 (Grade D) versus 35.2 for ITB. That doesn't make ITB a bad fund; it means FDIS currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, FDIS or ITB?
FDIS currently has the lower expense ratio (0.08% vs. 0.38%).
Can I hold both FDIS and ITB?
Yes, and it may be worth doing. FDIS and ITB correlate at only 0.61 over the past 3.0 years, so they behave differently enough that holding both is a genuine diversification decision rather than a redundant one. Size each to the role you want it to play.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.