FBCG vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FBCG is actively managed, while FNGS is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FBCG returned 14.46%/yr vs 19.76%/yr for FNGS. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FBCG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

FBCG vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBCG achieves a 11.31% return, which is significantly higher than FNGS's 6.79% return.

FBCG

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: -0.54%
• YTD: 11.31%
• 6M: 12.74%
• 1Y: 32.07%
• 3Y*: 28.04%
• 5Y*: 14.46%
• 10Y*: —

FNGS

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: -3.20%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 4.25%
• 1Y: 17.02%
• 3Y*: 29.80%
• 5Y*: 19.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

FBCG vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	11.31%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	41.44%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	6.79%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	59.98%

Correlation

The correlation between FBCG and FNGS is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020	0.91

The correlation between FBCG and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

FBCG vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBCG	FNGS
Technology	48.3%	59.9%
Consumer Cyclical	17.2%	11.3%
Communication Services	16.6%	28.8%
Healthcare	6.7%	-
Industrials	5.7%	-
Financial Services	2.2%	10.0%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	-
Real Estate	0.7%	-
Basic Materials	0.6%	-
Utilities	0.5%	-
Energy	0.4%	-

Return for Risk

FBCG vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 53
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 53
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 53

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 23
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). 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	FNGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	0.79	+0.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	1.19	+1.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.15	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.12	0.75	+1.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.07	2.12	+5.95

FBCG vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBCG and FNGS, 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. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBCG drawdown since its inception was -43.56%, smaller than the maximum FNGS drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBCG and FNGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBCG	FNGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.56%	-48.98%	+5.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.17%	-22.93%	+7.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.89%	-26.77%	-1.12%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.56%	-48.98%	+5.42%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.71%	-9.63%	+4.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.45%	-10.85%	-0.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.99%	8.05%	-4.06%

Volatility

FBCG vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) is 7.21%, while MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a volatility of 8.74%. This indicates that FBCG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBCG	FNGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.21%	8.74%	-1.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.09%	17.19%	-2.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.38%	21.65%	-2.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.90%	30.10%	-4.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.77%	31.17%	-5.40%

FBCG vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBCG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBCG vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	0.04%	0.05%	0.12%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBCG and FNGS in my portfolio?

FBCG and FNGS have a correlation of 0.85, 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 FNGS?

FNGS has higher volatility (8.74%) compared to FBCG (7.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBCG dropped -43.56% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

Which ETF is better, FBCG or FNGS?

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 19.76% vs 14.46% for FBCG. On fees, FNGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, FBCG has been the lower-risk option at 7.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBCG or FNGS?

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 19.76% return vs 14.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBCG or FNGS?

FNGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

FBCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.04%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

What is the main difference between FBCG and FNGS?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FBCG and 0.58% for FNGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 vs 0.79), 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.