FFLG vs GRW
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF vs TCW Durable Growth ETF
Which is better, FFLG or GRW?
FFLG has been ahead.
FFLG has a lower expense ratio. FFLG led over 1Y and the full window. GRW is less concentrated, with 52.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.3%.
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 | FFLG | GRW |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.38%Best | 0.75% |
| AUM | $635M | $64M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.07% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 202 | 64 |
| YTD Return | +11.11%Best | +0.53% |
| 1Y Return | +14.85%Best | -2.86% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.80% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.81% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.8% | 16.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -26.7%Best | -31.5% |
| $10,000 over 2.4 years | $15,160Best | $9,712 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.3% | 52.3%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | TCW ETFs |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Feb 2, 2021 | May 5, 2024 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.4 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: May 7, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.4 years).
FFLG vs GRW 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 2.4 years both funds cover.
FFLG vs GRW Performance
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW) is an ETF from TCW ETFs. Over the past year FFLG returned +14.85% while GRW returned -2.86%. Year to date, FFLG is up 11.11% versus a gain of 0.53% for GRW.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FFLG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 18.8% compared with 16.4% for GRW. 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 -26.7% for FFLG and -31.5% for GRW. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.54. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FFLG charges 0.38% per year while GRW charges 0.75%. On a $10,000 position that is $38 vs $75 annually, a gap of $37 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FFLG currently yields 0.07% against 0.00% for GRW.
Holdings Overlap
41.2% of FFLG's money is in holdings GRW also owns. 41.5% of GRW's money is in holdings FFLG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
10 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in FFLG and 30 in GRW, against full books of 202 and 64.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 19 positions for GRW that do not appear in our book for FFLG (54.6% of the fund), and 78 for FFLG that do not appear in GRW (52.4%).
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 FFLG | Weight in GRW | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 17.18% | 6.69% | 10.49% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 11.36% | 4.41% | 6.95% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.21% | 5.83% | 1.62% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.64% | 5.87% | 3.23% |
| ASL:ASAsml Holding Nv Unsponsored Adr Ordinary Shares | 0.24% | 5.55% | 5.31% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.88% | 1.91% | 0.97% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 1.26% | 3.08% | 1.82% |
| DDOGDatadog Inc | 0.62% | 3.38% | 2.76% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 0.42% | 2.84% | 2.42% |
| CDNSCadence Design Systems Inc. | 0.39% | 1.91% | 1.52% |
41.5% of GRW is already inside FFLG.
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, FFLG or GRW?
FFLG has an expense ratio of 0.38% while GRW charges 0.75%. FFLG is the cheaper option, by $37 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FFLG or GRW?
Over the past year FFLG returned +14.85% vs -2.86% for GRW, so FFLG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), FFLG annualized +18.93% vs -1.21% for GRW. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FFLG or GRW?
FFLG has been the more volatile fund at 18.8% annualized versus 16.4% for GRW. Worst drawdown: FFLG -26.7% vs GRW -31.5%.
Should I hold both FFLG and GRW?
FFLG and GRW have a monthly-return correlation of 0.54, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FFLG and GRW?
41.5% of GRW's money is in holdings FFLG also owns. 41.5% of GRW's is in holdings FFLG also owns. They hold 10 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in FFLG and 30 in GRW.
Which pays a higher dividend, FFLG or GRW?
FFLG yields 0.07% while GRW yields 0.00%, so FFLG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is GRW better than FFLG?
FFLG has a lower expense ratio. FFLG led over 1Y and the full window. GRW is less concentrated, with 52.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.