FACGX vs. IWM
FACGX (Fidelity Advisor Growth Opportunities Fund Class C) and IWM (iShares Russell 2000 ETF) are both funds - FACGX is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund managed by Fidelity, while IWM is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 Index. Over the past 10 years, FACGX returned 21.77%/yr vs 11.58%/yr for IWM. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FACGX charges 1.80%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IWM.
Performance
FACGX vs. IWM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FACGX achieves a 14.71% return, which is significantly lower than IWM's 20.47% return. Over the past 10 years, FACGX has outperformed IWM with an annualized return of 21.77%, while IWM has yielded a comparatively lower 11.58% annualized return.
FACGX
- 1D
- -1.23%
- 1M
- 2.65%
- YTD
- 14.71%
- 6M
- 13.49%
- 1Y
- 33.97%
- 3Y*
- 29.72%
- 5Y*
- 10.84%
- 10Y*
- 21.77%
IWM
- 1D
- -0.96%
- 1M
- 3.82%
- YTD
- 20.47%
- 6M
- 17.64%
- 1Y
- 40.90%
- 3Y*
- 19.22%
- 5Y*
- 6.27%
- 10Y*
- 11.58%
FACGX vs. IWM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FACGX Fidelity Advisor Growth Opportunities Fund Class C | 14.71% | 21.26% | 37.68% | 44.06% | -38.87% | 10.46% | 67.34% | 39.19% | 14.13% | 33.63% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 20.47% | 12.66% | 11.38% | 16.83% | -20.48% | 14.54% | 20.03% | 25.39% | -11.12% | 14.58% |
Correlation
The correlation between FACGX and IWM is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.64 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.67 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.76 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.74 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2000 | 0.81 |
The correlation between FACGX and IWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (1 year) to 0.81 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
FACGX vs. IWM — Risk / Return Rank
FACGX
IWM
FACGX vs. IWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Advisor Growth Opportunities Fund Class C (FACGX) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| FACGX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.28 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.48 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 1.34 | -0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.16 | 3.73 | -1.57 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.86 | 13.18 | -5.32 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FACGX vs. IWM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FACGX drawdown since its inception was -65.53%, which is greater than IWM's maximum drawdown of -59.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FACGX and IWM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FACGX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -65.53% | -59.05% | -6.48% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.45% | -11.03% | -5.42% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.70% | -27.50% | +0.80% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.17% | -31.91% | -13.26% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -45.17% | -41.13% | -4.04% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.49% | -0.96% | -0.53% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.11% | -10.75% | -5.36% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.51% | 3.11% | +1.40% |
Volatility
FACGX vs. IWM - Volatility Comparison
Fidelity Advisor Growth Opportunities Fund Class C (FACGX) has a higher volatility of 8.30% compared to iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) at 6.56%. This indicates that FACGX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FACGX | IWM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.30% | 6.56% | +1.74% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.83% | 14.31% | +1.52% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.75% | 19.74% | +0.01% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.05% | 22.61% | +2.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.01% | 23.06% | +0.95% |
FACGX vs. IWM - Expense Ratio Comparison
FACGX has a 1.80% expense ratio, which is higher than IWM's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
FACGX vs. IWM - Dividend Comparison
FACGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.58%, more than IWM's 0.90% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FACGX Fidelity Advisor Growth Opportunities Fund Class C | 4.58% | 5.26% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 11.75% | 6.13% | 4.87% | 14.01% | 8.00% | 17.39% | 12.23% |
IWM iShares Russell 2000 ETF | 0.90% | 1.04% | 1.15% | 1.35% | 1.48% | 0.94% | 1.04% | 1.26% | 1.40% | 1.26% | 1.38% | 1.54% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FACGX and IWM have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FACGX has higher volatility (8.30%) compared to IWM (6.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FACGX dropped -65.53% vs IWM's -59.05%.
IWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 1.80), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for FACGX and IWM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer