PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FBCG vs. ILCG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FBCG vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBCG achieves a 15.59% return, which is significantly higher than ILCG's 14.48% return.


FBCG

1D
-1.05%
1M
7.84%
YTD
15.59%
6M
15.51%
1Y
39.38%
3Y*
30.60%
5Y*
15.84%
10Y*

ILCG

1D
-1.02%
1M
7.68%
YTD
14.48%
6M
14.61%
1Y
29.51%
3Y*
26.55%
5Y*
14.95%
10Y*
18.15%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FBCG vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
15.59%18.60%39.05%57.98%-39.10%21.34%42.99%
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
14.48%16.71%32.82%40.41%-31.75%24.33%26.53%

Correlation

The correlation between FBCG and ILCG is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.96

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.97

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.97

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2020

0.97

The correlation between FBCG and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

FBCG vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FBCG
ILCG

Technology

48.3%
49.8%

Consumer Cyclical

17.2%
10.6%

Communication Services

16.6%
14.5%

Healthcare

6.7%
5.3%

Industrials

5.7%
8.3%

Financial Services

2.2%
6.0%

Consumer Defensive

1.3%
1.6%

Real Estate

0.7%
1.4%

Basic Materials

0.6%
1.1%

Utilities

0.5%
0.8%

Energy

0.4%
0.5%

Technology

FBCG
48.3%
ILCG
49.8%

Consumer Cyclical

FBCG
17.2%
ILCG
10.6%

Communication Services

FBCG
16.6%
ILCG
14.5%

Healthcare

FBCG
6.7%
ILCG
5.3%

Industrials

FBCG
5.7%
ILCG
8.3%

Financial Services

FBCG
2.2%
ILCG
6.0%

Consumer Defensive

FBCG
1.3%
ILCG
1.6%

Real Estate

FBCG
0.7%
ILCG
1.4%

Basic Materials

FBCG
0.6%
ILCG
1.1%

Utilities

FBCG
0.5%
ILCG
0.8%

Energy

FBCG
0.4%
ILCG
0.5%

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

FBCG vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBCG
FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank

ILCG
ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 4646
Overall Rank
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
Martin Ratio Rank
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. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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.


FBCGILCGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.32

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.39

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.32

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.61

1.89

+0.71

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.14

6.68

+3.46

FBCG vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBCG Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is comparable to the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBCG and ILCG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FBCGILCGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.14

1.82

+0.32

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.62

0.68

-0.07

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.85

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.83

0.59

+0.24

Drawdowns

FBCG vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBCG drawdown since its inception was -43.56%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBCG and ILCG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FBCGILCGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-43.56%

-52.98%

+9.42%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.17%

-15.65%

+0.48%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.89%

-23.10%

-4.79%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-43.56%

-35.38%

-8.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.38%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.05%

-1.02%

-0.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.49%

-8.22%

-3.27%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.90%

4.43%

-0.53%

Volatility

FBCG vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a higher volatility of 4.79% compared to iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) at 4.40%. This indicates that FBCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FBCGILCGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.79%

4.40%

+0.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.89%

12.81%

+1.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.55%

16.31%

+2.24%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

25.79%

22.00%

+3.79%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.72%

21.53%

+4.19%

FBCG vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBCG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.


Dividends

FBCG vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, less than ILCG's 0.40% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
0.40%0.47%0.50%0.69%0.75%0.34%0.28%0.54%0.81%0.89%0.95%0.99%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.96, FBCG and ILCG 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.

FBCG has higher volatility (4.79%) compared to ILCG (4.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBCG dropped -43.56% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 15.84% vs 14.95% for ILCG. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ILCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 15.84% return vs 14.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.40%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FBCG and 0.04% for ILCG.

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 1.82), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FBCG and ILCG

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