FBCG vs. CGDV

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) and CGDV (Capital Group Dividend Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FBCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while CGDV is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Capital Group. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FBCG returned 25.46%/yr vs 22.33%/yr for CGDV. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FBCG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CGDV.

Performance

FBCG vs. CGDV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBCG achieves a 9.50% return, which is significantly lower than CGDV's 12.11% return.

FBCG

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: -4.26%
• 6M: 9.12%
• YTD: 9.50%
• 1Y: 21.54%
• 3Y*: 25.46%
• 5Y*: 13.00%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.53%

CGDV

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: -0.40%
• 6M: 9.82%
• YTD: 12.11%
• 1Y: 21.34%
• 3Y*: 22.33%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.22%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FBCG vs. CGDV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	9.50%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-23.53%
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	12.11%	25.50%	20.10%	28.81%	-0.44%

Correlation

The correlation between FBCG and CGDV is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2022	0.80

The correlation between FBCG and CGDV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

FBCG vs. CGDV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBCG	CGDV
Technology	52.1%	34.5%
Consumer Cyclical	16.1%	12.6%
Communication Services	15.2%	9.8%
Industrials	5.8%	13.6%
Healthcare	5.6%	8.2%
Financial Services	2.2%	6.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	5.8%
Real Estate	0.6%	1.0%
Basic Materials	0.5%	2.8%
Utilities	0.4%	1.0%
Energy	0.3%	3.9%

Return for Risk

FBCG vs. CGDV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 38
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 37
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 43

CGDV

CGDV Risk / Return Rank: 70
CGDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
CGDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
CGDV Omega Ratio Rank: 73
CGDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
CGDV Martin Ratio Rank: 75

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

FBCG vs. CGDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV). 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.

	FBCG	CGDV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.07	1.73	-0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	2.44	-0.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.32	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.43	2.20	-0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.13	10.17	-5.04

FBCG vs. CGDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is lower than the CGDV Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBCG and CGDV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FBCG vs. CGDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBCG drawdown since its inception was -43.56%, which is greater than CGDV's maximum drawdown of -21.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBCG and CGDV.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBCG	CGDV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.56%	-21.82%	-21.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.17%	-9.75%	-5.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.89%	-14.28%	-13.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.56%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.26%	-1.72%	-4.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.34%	-3.54%	-7.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.21%	2.10%	+2.11%

Volatility

FBCG vs. CGDV - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a higher volatility of 6.51% compared to Capital Group Dividend Value ETF (CGDV) at 3.20%. This indicates that FBCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGDV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBCG	CGDV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.51%	3.20%	+3.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.08%	10.12%	+5.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.27%	12.41%	+7.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.04%	15.50%	+10.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.74%	15.50%	+10.24%

FBCG vs. CGDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBCG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than CGDV's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBCG vs. CGDV - Dividend Comparison

FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, less than CGDV's 1.20% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CGDV Capital Group Dividend Value ETF	1.20%	1.29%	1.60%	1.65%	1.36%	0.00%	0.00%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	0.04%	0.05%	0.12%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBCG and CGDV in my portfolio?

FBCG and CGDV have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FBCG or CGDV?

FBCG has higher volatility (6.51%) compared to CGDV (3.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBCG dropped -43.56% vs CGDV's -21.82%.

Which ETF is better, FBCG or CGDV?

On 3-year performance, FBCG leads with 25.46% vs 22.33% for CGDV. On fees, CGDV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, CGDV has been the lower-risk option at 3.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBCG or CGDV?

Over the 3-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 25.46% return vs 22.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBCG or CGDV?

CGDV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FBCG or CGDV?

CGDV has the higher dividend yield at 1.20%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FBCG and CGDV?

FBCG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while CGDV is Large Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FBCG and 0.33% for CGDV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 1.07), 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.