BGGG vs FRWD
Baillie Gifford Long Term Global Growth ETF vs Nomura Transformational Technologies ETF
Which is better, BGGG or FRWD?
FRWD costs less.
FRWD has a lower expense ratio. BGGG is less concentrated, with 52.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.0%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BGGG | FRWD |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.70% | 0.65%Best |
| AUM | $282M | $274M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 43 | 54 |
| YTD Return | -6.81% | +24.83%Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 52.5%Best | 56.0% |
| Fund Family | Baillie Gifford Funds | Nomura Asset Management Co Ltd |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 1, 2026 | Jan 13, 2026 |
Not shown on this pair: 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
BGGG vs FRWD growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
BGGG vs FRWD Performance
Baillie Gifford Long Term Global Growth ETF (BGGG) is an ETF from Baillie Gifford Funds and Nomura Transformational Technologies ETF (FRWD) is an ETF from Nomura Asset Management Co Ltd. Year to date, BGGG is down 6.81% versus a gain of 24.83% for FRWD.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BGGG charges 0.70% per year while FRWD charges 0.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $70 vs $65 annually, a gap of $5 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BGGG currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for FRWD.
Holdings Overlap
24.6% of BGGG's money is in holdings FRWD also owns. 26.0% of FRWD's money is in holdings BGGG also owns.
FRWD and BGGG share little of their money.
6 positions in common, counted across the 40 positions we hold weights for in BGGG and 26 in FRWD, against full books of 43 and 54.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 14 positions for FRWD that do not appear in our book for BGGG (46.8% of the fund), and 19 for BGGG that do not appear in FRWD (37.6%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
26.0% of FRWD is already inside BGGG.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BGGG or FRWD?
BGGG has an expense ratio of 0.70% while FRWD charges 0.65%. FRWD is the cheaper option, by $5 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between BGGG and FRWD?
26.0% of FRWD's money is in holdings BGGG also owns. 26.0% of FRWD's is in holdings BGGG also owns. They hold 6 positions in common, counted across the 40 positions we hold weights for in BGGG and 26 in FRWD.
Which pays a higher dividend, BGGG or FRWD?
BGGG yields 0.00% while FRWD yields 0.00%, so FRWD currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FRWD better than BGGG?
FRWD has a lower expense ratio. BGGG is less concentrated, with 52.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 56.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.