FBCG vs IWF
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF vs iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Which is better, FBCG or IWF?
Nearly the same fund. IWF costs less.
IWF has a lower expense ratio. FBCG led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.5%.
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 | FBCG | IWF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.57% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $7.6B | $129.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.03% | 0.34% |
| Holdings | 245 | 370 |
| YTD Return | +12.59%Best | +5.65% |
| 1Y Return | +17.09%Best | +7.28% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +27.54%Best | +22.37% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.04%Best | +12.59% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.7% | 18.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -43.6% | -32.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,457Best | $18,093 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.5% | 57.4%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 2, 2020 | May 22, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 4, 2020 to Oct 14, 2026 (6.4 years).
FBCG vs IWF 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 covers the 6.4 years both funds cover.
FBCG vs IWF Performance
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FBCG returned +17.09% while IWF returned +7.28%. Year to date, FBCG is up 12.59% versus a gain of 5.65% for IWF.
Over three years, FBCG compounded at +27.54% per year against +22.37% for IWF; over five years the annualized figures are +13.04% and +12.59% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, FBCG has the edge at +19.50% annualized vs +17.31%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FBCG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.7% compared with 18.9% for IWF. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -43.6% for FBCG and -32.7% for IWF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FBCG charges 0.57% per year while IWF charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $57 vs $18 annually, a gap of $39 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FBCG currently yields 0.03% against 0.34% for IWF.
Holdings Overlap
84.2% of FBCG's money is in holdings IWF also owns. 85.4% of IWF's money is in holdings FBCG also owns.
Most of IWF is already inside FBCG. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
108 positions in common, counted across the 200 positions we hold weights for in FBCG and 372 in IWF, against full books of 245 and 370.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 197 positions for IWF that do not appear in our book for FBCG (14.2% of the fund), and 74 for FBCG that do not appear in IWF (11.8%).
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.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in FBCG | Weight in IWF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.68% | 15.77% | 0.09% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 9.22% | 7.58% | 1.64% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 8.64% | 5.77% | 2.87% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.56% | 5.58% | 0.02% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.11% | 4.68% | 0.57% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.42% | 3.82% | 1.40% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.37% | 3.62% | 1.25% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.97% | 0.59% | 4.38% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.65% | 2.69% | 0.04% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 0.26% | 4.66% | 4.40% |
85.4% of IWF is already inside FBCG.
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, FBCG or IWF?
FBCG has an expense ratio of 0.57% while IWF charges 0.18%. IWF is the cheaper option, by $39 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FBCG or IWF?
Over the past year FBCG returned +17.09% vs +7.28% for IWF, so FBCG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FBCG annualized +19.50% vs +17.31% for IWF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FBCG or IWF?
FBCG has been the more volatile fund at 22.7% annualized versus 18.9% for IWF. Worst drawdown: FBCG -43.6% vs IWF -32.7%.
Should I hold both FBCG and IWF?
FBCG and IWF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FBCG and IWF?
85.4% of IWF's money is in holdings FBCG also owns. 85.4% of IWF's is in holdings FBCG also owns. They hold 108 positions in common, counted across the 200 positions we hold weights for in FBCG and 372 in IWF.
Which pays a higher dividend, FBCG or IWF?
FBCG yields 0.03% while IWF yields 0.34%, so IWF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWF better than FBCG?
IWF has a lower expense ratio. FBCG led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. IWF is less concentrated, with 57.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.