I don't think such contrast is valid.
Materialism is an old word, and it never meant the idea that "everything is matter". Rather, it has always beend contrasted to "idealism", and the issue between them isn't if everything is matter or everything is idea, but whether ideas originate from matter, or matter originates from ideas. No materialist will tell you that the idea of God is made of atoms; all of them will agree that the idea of God does not pre-exist thinking entities, all of which are made of matter. Conversely, very few, if any, idealists would sustain that a copy of the Holy Bible isn't made of matter.
In such way, there is no meaningful contrast between "materialism" and "physicalism": the terms are synonims. But the latter word, according to the SEP, was coined by two minor philosophers, Neurath and Carnap, to mark the distinction between their position and materialism: materialism would be a "metaphysical", and as such nonsencical, position about reality; "physicalism" would be their idea (in their opinion, merely linguistic and not "metaphysical") that "every statement is synonymous with a physical statement" - which of course, boils down to linguistic idealism.
In this sense, there is a meaningful contrast between "materialism" and "physicalism", but the latter is merely a variant of linguistic idealism (language creates reality, not the other way round).