FBCG vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FBCG returned 15.84%/yr vs 22.22%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FBCG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

FBCG vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBCG achieves a 15.59% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 40.18% return.

FBCG

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

IQM

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 11.94%
• YTD: 40.18%
• 6M: 38.57%
• 1Y: 75.07%
• 3Y*: 37.62%
• 5Y*: 22.22%
• 10Y*: —

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

FBCG vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	15.59%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	42.99%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	40.18%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	59.62%

Correlation

The correlation between FBCG and IQM 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	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2020	0.91

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

FBCG vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBCG	IQM
Technology	48.3%	65.9%
Consumer Cyclical	17.2%	4.1%
Communication Services	16.6%	2.1%
Healthcare	6.7%	1.1%
Industrials	5.7%	19.9%
Financial Services	2.2%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	-
Real Estate	0.7%	-
Basic Materials	0.6%	-
Utilities	0.5%	3.3%
Energy	0.4%	2.7%

Return for Risk

FBCG vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 57
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 58
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 57

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 78
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM). 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.

	FBCG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.14	2.67	-0.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.84	3.11	-0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.43	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.61	5.13	-2.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.14	16.79	-6.65
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FBCG vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBCG Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is comparable to the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBCG and IQM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FBCG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.14	2.67	-0.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62	0.77	-0.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.83	0.96	-0.13

Drawdowns

FBCG vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBCG drawdown since its inception was -43.56%, roughly equal to the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBCG and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBCG	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.56%	-44.91%	+1.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.17%	-14.71%	-0.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.89%	-30.42%	+2.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.56%	-44.91%	+1.35%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.05%	-0.37%	-0.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.49%	-12.25%	+0.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.90%	4.49%	-0.59%

Volatility

FBCG vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) is 4.79%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.20%. This indicates that FBCG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IQM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBCG	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.79%	9.20%	-4.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.89%	22.92%	-9.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.55%	28.27%	-9.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.79%	28.91%	-3.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.72%	30.72%	-5.00%

FBCG vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBCG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBCG vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, while IQM 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%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.17%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBCG and IQM in my portfolio?

FBCG and IQM 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 IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (9.20%) compared to FBCG (4.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBCG dropped -43.56% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, FBCG or IQM?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 22.22% vs 15.84% for FBCG. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FBCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBCG or IQM?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 22.22% return vs 15.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBCG or IQM?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

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

What is the main difference between FBCG and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FBCG and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 2.14), 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.