How do the expense ratios of FDMO and SPMO compare, and what does a small fee difference mean for long-term returns?

FDMO has an expense ratio of 0.15%, while SPMO charges 0.13%. This 0.02 percentage point difference is minimal for most retail investors. Over time, fees reduce the investor's final return. For a $10,000 investment, a 0.02% difference costs approximately $2 annually, excluding potential variations in fund performance. This comparison emphasises the importance of evaluating total costs alongside fund strategy and performance history, rather than isolating fees from other factors. For long-term investors, small differences can compound, but the primary focus should remain on alignment with financial goals and risk tolerance.

How is a momentum factor ETF different from a traditional market-cap-weighted index fund?

A momentum factor ETF like FDMO or SPMO tilts its portfolio towards stocks showing strong recent performance trends, expecting these to continue outperforming. This differs from traditional index funds that replicate broad market performance based solely on company size. For example, an S&P 500 index fund includes all constituents by market cap. In contrast, momentum ETFs overweight stocks with rising prices and reduce exposure to underperforming stocks, regardless of market capitalisation. This strategy aims to generate excess returns but may increase portfolio volatility as holdings shift more dynamically compared to passive index funds.

How do the dividend yields of FDMO (0.61%) and SPMO (0.72%) differ, and what does this imply for income generation?

SPMO provides a dividend yield of 0.72%, compared to FDMO's 0.61%. This difference of 0.11 percentage points means SPMO offers modestly better income generation from its holdings. However, both yields are relatively low compared to broader equity market averages, reflecting the funds' focus on growth-oriented companies. Dividends represent only one component of total return; for investors prioritising capital appreciation over regular income, this difference may have limited impact. It's important to consider distributions alongside other factors like fund expenses and potential growth prospects when evaluating suitability for income-focused strategies.

How do concentration risks differ between FDMO and SPMO based on their top holdings?

Concentration risk manifests differently for each fund. SPMO's largest holding is Micron Technology (MU) at 11.09%, representing a higher single-stock concentration than FDMO's largest position, Nvidia (NVDA) at 8.49%. This means SPMO has greater sensitivity to Micron's performance, potentially increasing volatility if the semiconductor sector experiences significant challenges. Meanwhile, FDMO maintains its largest positions in NVDA (8.49%) and Apple (AAPL) at 8.07%, with more balanced distribution across top holdings. Both strategies aim to capitalise on momentum leaders while managing concentration through diversification within the momentum universe. Investors should evaluate these concentration levels within the context of their personal risk tolerance and broader portfolio diversification.

What do the top-10 holdings of FDMO and SPMO reveal about their respective investment approaches?

FDMO's top-10 includes NVDA (8.49%), AAPL (8.07%), and GOOGL (5.57%), while SPMO's top-10 features MU (11.09%), NVDA (9.02%), and AVGO (6.05%). Notably, only NVDA, GOOGL, MU, AMD, and INTC appear in both funds' top-10 lists. This indicates different momentum implementation: FDMO's inclusion of AAPL and AMZN suggests a broader approach to large-cap momentum, whereas SPMO's concentration in MU and AVGO reflects a technology and semiconductor tilt within the S&P 500. The absence of AAPL and AMZN in SPMO's top-10 suggests they may not be exhibiting the strongest momentum metrics among S&P 500 constituents.

What does it mean that a factor-based ETF like FDMO or SPMO has a 'not available' index tracking?

The 'index tracked: not available' notation for both FDMO and SPMO indicates their underlying benchmarks aren't widely specified in standard ETF databases. For FDMO, this suggests the fund might employ an active or proprietary approach to momentum factor implementation rather than replicating a public index. SPMO, while labelled as an S&P 500 Momentum ETF, may track a custom momentum index within the S&P 500 universe that isn't commonly referenced in standard financial data feeds. Investors should understand that factor-based strategies don't necessarily replicate traditional benchmarks like the S&P 500. Instead, they implement systematic rules for selecting stocks based on specific factors, which may differ from conventional index construction methods. This opacity requires additional due diligence to assess methodology.

What do the net assets of $903 million for FDMO and $28.9 billion for SPMO indicate about these ETFs?

Net assets (also called AUM) directly relate to an ETF's liquidity. With $28.9 billion in AUM, SPMO typically has a larger investor base and more frequent trading volume, resulting in narrower bid-ask spreads. FDMO's $903 million in assets provides sufficient liquidity for most retail investors but might exhibit wider spreads during periods of low trading activity. Both figures are well above thresholds where liquidity concerns arise. For investors, these asset levels indicate established funds with professional management and operational infrastructure. It is important to note that a larger fund does not necessarily mean it performs better, but rather that it has attracted more investor capital.

How do differences in inception dates (2016 for FDMO, 2015 for SPMO) affect comparisons?

SPMO launched in October 2015, with FDMO following in September 2016. This 11-month difference means SPMO has a marginally longer track record in the market. While this gap is not huge, it does provide SPMO with a slightly longer history of performance data. However, neither fund's track record is long enough to make robust conclusions about how momentum factors behave across multiple full market cycles. Investors should treat their performance histories as roughly equivalent and look to external factor research for a broader historical context on momentum investing.

What does FDMO's 'Large Growth' category and SPMO's 'Large Blend' classification tell investors about their potential exposure?

These categories suggest different investment styles. FDMO's classification as 'Large Growth' indicates its holdings lean towards companies with higher growth characteristics, though its top holdings include companies of various profiles. SPMO's 'Large Blend' classification suggests it may include both growth and value stocks, particularly when applying momentum metrics to the S&P 500 constituents. During market rotations, the SPMO methodology could result in holdings that appear value-oriented if they exhibit strong momentum. While these classifications provide a general idea of a fund's style, momentum factors can lead to holdings that don't neatly fit traditional category definitions. Understanding these categorisation differences is important for assessing how each fund might fit within a broader portfolio strategy.

What should investors consider when interpreting the 0.13% versus 0.15% expense ratios for SPMO and FDMO?

The 0.02 percentage point difference in expense ratios (0.13% for SPMO versus 0.15% for FDMO) represents a minor cost disparity. On a $10,000 investment, this equals $2 per year. While cost is important, these are both low-cost ETFs relative to traditional active funds. The expense ratio directly reduces the return investors receive, so over longer investment horizons (10+ years), the cumulative effect of fees becomes more significant. However, with only 0.02 percentage points separating these funds, other considerations such as concentration in top holdings, liquidity, and how each fund's methodology is implemented may have a more meaningful impact on overall portfolio performance. Fees should be evaluated in conjunction with total returns and not as the primary differentiator.

How should a beginner use a comparison page like this to evaluate ETF options?

This comparison provides factual data to facilitate initial analysis. Beginners should note that expense ratios, dividend yields, net assets, and holdings provide a snapshot of fund characteristics, but they do not constitute investment advice or indicate future performance. When reviewing such information, investors need to understand how each metric relates to their own situation and verify data with official fund documents. The comparison highlights similarities, like the overlapping top holdings of NVDA, GOOGL, and MU, and differences, such as the concentration levels in MU versus NVDA and the distinct category labels. This is an educational tool to support independent research and help clarify terminology for discussions with financial professionals, not a recommendation to buy or sell either product.

FDMO vs SPMO

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in September 2026.

Compare Fidelity Momentum Factor ETF (FDMO) and Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF (SPMO). Review their expense ratios of 0.15% and 0.13%, dividend yields, top holdings and how each fund tracks the market. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

FDMO

Metric

SPMO

0.15%

Expense Ratio

0.13%

0.61%

Dividend Yield

0.72%

$903.38M

Net Assets

$28.85B

139

Holdings

102

Sep 12, 2016

Inception Date

Oct 9, 2015

–

Index Tracked

–

Large Growth

Fund Category

Large Blend

SPMO costs about $2.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

Holding	FDMO	SPMO
NVDANVIDIA Corporation	8.49%	9.02%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc.	5.57%	4.51%
MUMicron Technology, Inc.	2.77%	11.09%
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc.	2.48%	4.49%
INTCIntel Corporation	1.93%	2.88%

Discover More Comparisons

QQQM vs SPMO

Compare QQQM and SPMO ETFs. Analyse fees, dividend yields, top holdings and index tracking details. Neutral factual data to support research.

SCHG vs SPMO

Compare SCHG and SPMO. Review expense ratios, dividend yields, and shared holdings like NVDA. Understand differences between growth and momentum strategies.

MTUM vs SPMO

Compare MTUM and SPMO on fees, holdings, dividends and tracking. Review expense ratios of 0.15% versus 0.13% and yields for this momentum ETF analysis.

Investment Analysis

FDMO

Pros

Fidelity's active management approach offers potential for outperformance by selecting stocks based on momentum factors rather than strict index replication.
With $903 million in net assets, the fund maintains sufficient liquidity for most retail investors while avoiding the potential tracking errors common in smaller funds.
The 0.15% expense ratio is competitive for a factor-based strategy, providing cost-efficient access to momentum investing without the higher fees of traditional active funds.

Considerations

Dividend yield of 0.61% is lower than SPMO's 0.72%, reducing income potential for investors prioritising regular cash distributions from their equity holdings.
Concentration in top holdings like NVDA at 8.49% and AAPL at 8.07% introduces significant single-stock risk, potentially amplifying volatility during sector downturns.
Index tracked is not available, creating opacity regarding the underlying benchmark and methodology, which hinders precise performance evaluation against specific market indices.

SPMO

Pros

With $28.9 billion in net assets, SPMO benefits from exceptional liquidity and economies of scale, typically resulting in tighter bid-ask spreads for traders.
The 0.13% expense ratio is marginally lower than FDMO's 0.15%, offering a slight cost advantage for long-term investors holding the fund over extended periods.
A dividend yield of 0.72% provides modest but better income generation compared to FDMO, appealing to investors seeking some cash flow from their growth holdings.

Considerations

Top holding MU at 11.09% represents a higher concentration risk than FDMO's largest position, potentially exposing the fund to greater idiosyncratic volatility if Micron underperforms.
Exclusion of major mega-cap tech stocks like AAPL and AMZN from its top ten holdings may limit upside exposure during broad large-cap technology rallies.
Category classification as Large Blend rather than Large Growth might confuse investors seeking pure-growth exposure, as momentum strategies can hold value-oriented stocks during rotations.

About FDMO and SPMO

FDMO (FDMO)

The Fidelity Momentum Factor ETF is a large-cap growth fund designed to capitalise on the momentum factor. It aims to hold companies that have shown strong recent relative performance, potentially capturing continued growth. With an expense ratio of 0.15%, it offers a cost-efficient way to access this style of investing. The fund holds 139 companies and had net assets of USD 903 million as of recent data. Investors should note that momentum strategies can be sensitive to market sentiment, meaning values may fluctuate if performance reverses. While it provides a targeted approach to growth, it does not guarantee success, and past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results.

SPMO (SPMO)

The Invesco S&P 500 Momentum ETF offers investors exposure to companies within the S&P 500 index that have demonstrated stronger price performance compared to the broader market in recent times. By focusing on stocks with positive momentum trends, the fund aims to capture opportunities in sectors or companies currently experiencing growth or renewed interest. It holds approximately 102 companies, reflecting a diversified approach within the large-cap category. With a low expense ratio of 0.13%, it provides a cost-effective way to gain this specific type of market exposure. Investors should note that while momentum strategies can perform well during trending markets, they may underperform during market reversals or periods of volatility. Values can rise and fall, and past performance is not a guarantee of future results. This ETF is suitable for those interested in understanding systematic investment approaches, keeping risk tolerance in mind.

Buy FDMO or SPMO in Nemo

🆓

Zero Commission

Trade stocks, ETFs, and more with zero commission. Keep more of your returns.

🔒

Trusted & Regulated

Part of Exinity Group 2015, serving over a million customers globally.

💰

6% Interest on Cash

Earn 6% AER on uninvested cash with daily interest payments.

FDMO vs SPMO

Fund Snapshot