FBCG vs MFSG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF vs MFS Active Growth ETF
Which is better, FBCG or MFSG?
Nearly the same fund. MFSG costs less.
MFSG has a lower expense ratio. FBCG led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. MFSG is less concentrated, with 53.3% 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 | MFSG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.57% | 0.49%Best |
| AUM | $7.6B | $406M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.03% | 0.06% |
| Holdings | 245 | 69 |
| YTD Return | +12.59%Best | +7.53% |
| 1Y Return | +17.09%Best | +9.18% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +27.54% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.04% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.9% | 17.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -27.9% | -23.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.9 years | $13,052Best | $12,025 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.5% | 53.3%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | MFS Investment Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 2, 2020 | Dec 5, 2024 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 5, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.9 years).
FBCG vs MFSG 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 1.9 years both funds cover.
FBCG vs MFSG Performance
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) is an ETF from MFS Investment Management. Over the past year FBCG returned +17.09% while MFSG returned +9.18%. Year to date, FBCG is up 12.59% versus a gain of 7.53% for MFSG.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FBCG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.9% compared with 17.5% for MFSG. 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 -27.9% for FBCG and -23.2% for MFSG. 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 MFSG charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $57 vs $49 annually, a gap of $8 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FBCG currently yields 0.03% against 0.06% for MFSG.
Holdings Overlap
70.2% of FBCG's money is in holdings MFSG also owns. 79.5% of MFSG's money is in holdings FBCG also owns.
Most of MFSG is already inside FBCG. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
39 positions in common, counted across the 200 positions we hold weights for in FBCG and 67 in MFSG, against full books of 245 and 69.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 25 positions for MFSG that do not appear in our book for FBCG (17.7% of the fund), and 144 for FBCG that do not appear in MFSG (27.2%).
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 MFSG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.68% | 13.98% | 1.70% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 8.64% | 11.60% | 2.96% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 9.22% | 6.42% | 2.80% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.56% | 5.28% | 0.28% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.97% | 2.83% | 2.14% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.11% | 3.20% | 0.91% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.42% | 2.81% | 0.39% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 0.26% | 3.36% | 3.10% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.37% | 1.15% | 1.22% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.65% | 0.41% | 2.24% |
79.5% of MFSG 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 MFSG?
FBCG has an expense ratio of 0.57% while MFSG charges 0.49%. MFSG is the cheaper option, by $8 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FBCG or MFSG?
Over the past year FBCG returned +17.09% vs +9.18% for MFSG, so FBCG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), FBCG annualized +15.05% vs +10.19% for MFSG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FBCG or MFSG?
FBCG has been the more volatile fund at 20.9% annualized versus 17.5% for MFSG. Worst drawdown: FBCG -27.9% vs MFSG -23.2%.
Should I hold both FBCG and MFSG?
FBCG and MFSG 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 MFSG?
79.5% of MFSG's money is in holdings FBCG also owns. 79.5% of MFSG's is in holdings FBCG also owns. They hold 39 positions in common, counted across the 200 positions we hold weights for in FBCG and 67 in MFSG.
Which pays a higher dividend, FBCG or MFSG?
FBCG yields 0.03% while MFSG yields 0.06%, so MFSG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MFSG better than FBCG?
MFSG has a lower expense ratio. FBCG led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. MFSG is less concentrated, with 53.3% 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.