The Fidelity MSCI Consumer Staples Index ETF (FSTA 0.22%) and the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (RSPS 1.33%) both target U.S. consumer staples stocks, but their approaches lead to distinct results.
This comparison breaks down how their fees, returns, risk, liquidity, and holdings stack up for investors looking to access this defensive sector.
Snapshot (cost & size)
| Metric | RSPS | FSTA |
|---|---|---|
| Issuer | Invesco | Fidelity |
| Expense ratio | 0.40% | 0.08% |
| 1-yr return (as of Feb. 3, 2026) | 7.01% | 8.34% |
| Dividend yield | 2.82% | 2.34% |
| AUM | $232 million | $1.3 billion |
| Beta (5Y monthly) | 0.52 | 0.55 |
Beta measures price volatility relative to the S&P 500. The 1-yr return represents total return over the trailing 12 months.
FSTA is considerably more affordable than RSPS, with an expense ratio of just 0.08% versus 0.40%. In other words, investors can expect to pay $8 per year in fees for every $10,000 invested in FSTA compared to $40 per year with RSPS. Also, while the funds offer similar dividend yields, RSPS has a slight edge over FSTA.
Performance & risk comparison
| Metric | RSPS | FSTA |
|---|---|---|
| Max drawdown (5 y) | -18.61% | -16.57% |
| Growth of $1,000 over 5 years | $1,067 | $1,385 |
What's inside
FSTA holds 96 stocks and tracks mostly consumer defensive names (98%), with minor allocations to consumer cyclical. Its top positions are concentrated: Costco Wholesale, Walmart, and Procter & Gamble account for nearly 37% of assets. The fund is designed to mirror the broader consumer staples sector, but its largest holdings dominate overall exposure.
RSPS, by contrast, equally weights its 36 holdings from the S&P 500’s consumer staples sector. This offers a more balanced approach, as all of its holdings make up roughly 3% of assets.
For more guidance on ETF investing, check out the full guide at this link.
What this means for investors
FSTA and RSPS each take different approaches to the consumer staples industry, and the right choice for your portfolio will depend on your investing preferences and risk tolerance.
FSTA is dominated by large brands, with household names accounting for a sizable share of assets. This can be an advantage when those particular companies are thriving, but if they falter, it could hit this ETF harder.
RSPS, on the other hand, is an equal-weight fund. While it holds far fewer stocks than FSTA (just 36 compared to 96), each of those stocks makes up roughly the same proportion of the portfolio. This can help reduce volatility, as all stocks are on equal footing and less likely to sway the fund’s overall performance.
There isn’t necessarily a clear winner between the two ETFs, as they offer unique angles that could appeal to different investors.
FSTA has the potential to outperform if its top holdings surge, but it could also be at risk of greater short-term volatility. RSPS’s equal-weight approach helps lower single-stock risk, but its smaller portfolio and reduced exposure to heavy-hitting companies could also limit its earning potential.
