FBCG vs XOVR
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF vs ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Which is better, FBCG or XOVR?
FBCG has been ahead.
FBCG has a lower expense ratio. FBCG led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90.
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 | XOVR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.57%Best | 1.81% |
| AUM | $7.6B | $1.5B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.03% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 245 | 33 |
| YTD Return | +12.59%Best | +6.41% |
| 1Y Return | +17.09%Best | +1.58% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +27.54%Best | +22.10% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.04%Best | +5.66% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.7%Best | 24.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -43.6%Best | -56.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,457Best | $13,169 |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | ERShares |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 2, 2020 | Nov 7, 2017 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 4, 2020 to Oct 14, 2026 (6.4 years).
FBCG vs XOVR 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 XOVR Performance
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF (XOVR) is an ETF from ERShares. Over the past year FBCG returned +17.09% while XOVR returned +1.58%. Year to date, FBCG is up 12.59% versus a gain of 6.41% for XOVR.
Over three years, FBCG compounded at +27.54% per year against +22.10% for XOVR; over five years the annualized figures are +13.04% and +5.66% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, FBCG has the edge at +19.50% annualized vs +9.22%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XOVR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 24.5% compared with 22.7% for FBCG. 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 -56.3% for XOVR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. 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 XOVR charges 1.81%. On a $10,000 position that is $57 vs $181 annually, a gap of $124 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FBCG currently yields 0.03% against 0.00% for XOVR.
Holdings Overlap
At least 34.0% of FBCG's money is in holdings XOVR also owns.
Stated as a floor: for XOVR, our book for it covers 77.3% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
16 positions in common, counted across the 200 positions we hold weights for in FBCG and 30 in XOVR, against full books of 245 and 33.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in FBCG | Weight in XOVR | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.68% | 9.73% | 5.95% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 8.64% | 5.74% | 2.90% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.42% | 4.78% | 2.36% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.37% | 1.70% | 0.67% |
| HOODRobinhood Markets Inc - A | 0.39% | 3.34% | 2.95% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc Common Stock | 0.16% | 2.97% | 2.81% |
| DASHDoordash Inc - A | 0.36% | 2.75% | 2.39% |
| MPWRMonolithic Power Systems Inc | 0.82% | 2.27% | 1.45% |
| NTRANatera Inc | 0.11% | 2.95% | 2.84% |
| ALABAstera Labs Inc - Common | 0.56% | 2.49% | 1.93% |
34.0% of FBCG is already inside XOVR.
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 XOVR?
FBCG has an expense ratio of 0.57% while XOVR charges 1.81%. FBCG is the cheaper option, by $124 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FBCG or XOVR?
Over the past year FBCG returned +17.09% vs +1.58% for XOVR, so FBCG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FBCG annualized +19.50% vs +9.22% for XOVR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FBCG or XOVR?
XOVR has been the more volatile fund at 24.5% annualized versus 22.7% for FBCG. Worst drawdown: FBCG -43.6% vs XOVR -56.3%.
Should I hold both FBCG and XOVR?
FBCG and XOVR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 XOVR?
At least 34.0% of FBCG's money is in holdings XOVR also owns. Our book for XOVR is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 16 positions in common, counted across the 200 positions we hold weights for in FBCG and 30 in XOVR.
Which pays a higher dividend, FBCG or XOVR?
FBCG yields 0.03% while XOVR yields 0.00%, so FBCG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XOVR better than FBCG?
FBCG has a lower expense ratio. FBCG led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.