FBCG vs. ILCB

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) and ILCB (iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FBCG is actively managed, while ILCB is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FBCG returned 13.39%/yr vs 12.58%/yr for ILCB. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FBCG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for ILCB.

Performance

FBCG vs. ILCB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF (ILCB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBCG achieves a 10.08% return, which is significantly higher than ILCB's 8.52% return.

FBCG

• 1D: -2.80%
• 1M: -1.48%
• YTD: 10.08%
• 6M: 9.15%
• 1Y: 31.50%
• 3Y*: 27.58%
• 5Y*: 13.39%
• 10Y*: —

ILCB

• 1D: -1.36%
• 1M: -1.01%
• YTD: 8.52%
• 6M: 7.55%
• 1Y: 23.81%
• 3Y*: 21.04%
• 5Y*: 12.58%
• 10Y*: 14.97%

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

FBCG vs. ILCB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	10.08%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	41.44%
ILCB iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF	8.52%	17.70%	24.96%	26.91%	-19.48%	24.07%	23.90%

Correlation

The correlation between FBCG and ILCB is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020	0.90

The correlation between FBCG and ILCB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

FBCG vs. ILCB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBCG	ILCB
Technology	48.9%	38.9%
Consumer Cyclical	17.2%	9.3%
Communication Services	17.1%	9.9%
Industrials	5.6%	8.4%
Healthcare	5.6%	8.4%
Financial Services	2.2%	11.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	4.5%
Real Estate	0.6%	1.7%
Basic Materials	0.5%	1.8%
Utilities	0.5%	2.6%
Energy	0.4%	3.1%

Return for Risk

FBCG vs. ILCB — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 46
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 45
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 48

ILCB

ILCB Risk / Return Rank: 60
ILCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
ILCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
ILCB Omega Ratio Rank: 59
ILCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
ILCB Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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. ILCB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF (ILCB). 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	ILCB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.59	1.89	-0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.17	2.59	-0.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.34	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.09	2.63	-0.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.85	11.66	-3.81

FBCG vs. ILCB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is comparable to the ILCB Sharpe Ratio of 1.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBCG and ILCB, 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. ILCB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBCG drawdown since its inception was -43.56%, smaller than the maximum ILCB drawdown of -51.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBCG and ILCB.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBCG	ILCB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.56%	-51.53%	+7.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.17%	-9.09%	-6.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.89%	-19.05%	-8.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.56%	-25.47%	-18.09%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.30%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.76%	-3.00%	-2.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.42%	-6.23%	-5.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.02%	2.05%	+1.97%

Volatility

FBCG vs. ILCB - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a higher volatility of 8.27% compared to iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF (ILCB) at 4.82%. This indicates that FBCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILCB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBCG	ILCB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.27%	4.82%	+3.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.50%	9.99%	+5.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.84%	12.66%	+7.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.00%	17.23%	+8.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.80%	18.20%	+7.60%

FBCG vs. ILCB - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBCG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCB's 0.03% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBCG vs. ILCB - Dividend Comparison

FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, less than ILCB's 1.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	0.04%	0.05%	0.12%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ILCB iShares Morningstar U.S. Equity ETF	1.00%	1.11%	1.19%	1.43%	1.65%	1.16%	1.26%	2.25%	2.17%	1.81%	1.97%	2.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBCG and ILCB in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, FBCG and ILCB move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FBCG or ILCB?

FBCG has higher volatility (8.27%) compared to ILCB (4.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBCG dropped -43.56% vs ILCB's -51.53%.

Which ETF is better, FBCG or ILCB?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 13.39% vs 12.58% for ILCB. On fees, ILCB is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, ILCB has been the lower-risk option at 4.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBCG or ILCB?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 13.39% return vs 12.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBCG or ILCB?

ILCB is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

ILCB has the higher dividend yield at 1.00%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FBCG and ILCB?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FBCG and 0.03% for ILCB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILCB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.89 vs 1.59), 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.