FFLG vs JGRO
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF vs JPMorgan Active Growth ETF
Which is better, FFLG or JGRO?
Nearly the same fund. FFLG costs less.
FFLG has a lower expense ratio. FFLG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. JGRO is less concentrated, with 50.0% 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 | JGRO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.38%Best | 0.44% |
| AUM | $635M | $10.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.07% | 0.15% |
| Holdings | 202 | 134 |
| YTD Return | +11.11%Best | +2.91% |
| 1Y Return | +14.85%Best | +2.83% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +25.80%Best | +19.98% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.81% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.0% | 16.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -26.7% | -22.7%Best |
| $10,000 over 4.2 years | $23,076Best | $19,462 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.3% | 50.0%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Feb 2, 2021 | Aug 8, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 9, 2022 to Oct 14, 2026 (4.2 years).
FFLG vs JGRO 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 4.2 years both funds cover.
FFLG vs JGRO Performance
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and JPMorgan Active Growth ETF (JGRO) is an ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Over the past year FFLG returned +14.85% while JGRO returned +2.83%. Year to date, FFLG is up 11.11% versus a gain of 2.91% for JGRO.
Over three years, FFLG compounded at +25.80% per year against +19.98% for JGRO. Across the full 4-year window we track, FFLG has the edge at +22.03% annualized vs +17.18%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FFLG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 20.0% compared with 16.9% for JGRO. 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 -22.7% for JGRO. 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
FFLG charges 0.38% per year while JGRO charges 0.44%. On a $10,000 position that is $38 vs $44 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FFLG currently yields 0.07% against 0.15% for JGRO.
Holdings Overlap
65.7% of FFLG's money is in holdings JGRO also owns. 68.2% of JGRO's money is in holdings FFLG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
46 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in FFLG and 134 in JGRO, against full books of 202 and 134.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 81 positions for JGRO that do not appear in our book for FFLG (29.0% of the fund), and 42 for FFLG that do not appear in JGRO (27.9%).
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 JGRO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 17.18% | 12.10% | 5.08% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.13% | 6.09% | 1.04% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 0.73% | 9.37% | 8.64% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.21% | 4.32% | 0.11% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.64% | 4.12% | 1.48% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 3.50% | 3.06% | 0.44% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.05% | 3.09% | 0.04% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 3.11% | 2.34% | 0.77% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.45% | 3.65% | 2.20% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.88% | 1.30% | 1.58% |
68.2% of JGRO 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 JGRO?
FFLG has an expense ratio of 0.38% while JGRO charges 0.44%. FFLG is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FFLG or JGRO?
Over the past year FFLG returned +14.85% vs +2.83% for JGRO, so FFLG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), FFLG annualized +22.03% vs +17.18% for JGRO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FFLG or JGRO?
FFLG has been the more volatile fund at 20.0% annualized versus 16.9% for JGRO. Worst drawdown: FFLG -26.7% vs JGRO -22.7%.
Should I hold both FFLG and JGRO?
FFLG and JGRO 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 FFLG and JGRO?
68.2% of JGRO's money is in holdings FFLG also owns. 68.2% of JGRO's is in holdings FFLG also owns. They hold 46 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in FFLG and 134 in JGRO.
Which pays a higher dividend, FFLG or JGRO?
FFLG yields 0.07% while JGRO yields 0.15%, so JGRO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is JGRO better than FFLG?
FFLG has a lower expense ratio. FFLG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. JGRO is less concentrated, with 50.0% 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.