FBCG vs. IUSG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) and IUSG (iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FBCG is actively managed, while IUSG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FBCG returned 13.39%/yr vs 13.77%/yr for IUSG. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FBCG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for IUSG.

Performance

FBCG vs. IUSG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF (IUSG). 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 IUSG's 9.19% return.

FBCG

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

IUSG

• 1D: -2.31%
• 1M: -1.86%
• YTD: 9.19%
• 6M: 7.87%
• 1Y: 26.96%
• 3Y*: 25.00%
• 5Y*: 13.77%
• 10Y*: 17.77%

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

FBCG vs. IUSG - 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%
IUSG iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF	9.19%	21.23%	34.70%	29.28%	-28.81%	31.26%	26.16%

Correlation

The correlation between FBCG and IUSG 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	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020	0.95

The correlation between FBCG and IUSG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

FBCG vs. IUSG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBCG	IUSG
Technology	48.9%	50.8%
Consumer Cyclical	17.2%	8.4%
Communication Services	17.1%	15.2%
Industrials	5.6%	6.6%
Healthcare	5.6%	6.4%
Financial Services	2.2%	8.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	1.2%
Real Estate	0.6%	0.8%
Basic Materials	0.5%	0.5%
Utilities	0.5%	1.1%
Energy	0.4%	0.3%

Return for Risk

FBCG vs. IUSG — 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

IUSG

IUSG Risk / Return Rank: 47
IUSG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
IUSG Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
IUSG Omega Ratio Rank: 45
IUSG Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
IUSG Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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. IUSG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF (IUSG). 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	IUSG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.59	1.60	-0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.17	2.20	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.28	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.09	2.07	+0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.85	8.45	-0.60

FBCG vs. IUSG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is comparable to the IUSG Sharpe Ratio of 1.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBCG and IUSG, 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. IUSG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBCG drawdown since its inception was -43.56%, smaller than the maximum IUSG drawdown of -63.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBCG and IUSG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBCG	IUSG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.56%	-63.41%	+19.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.17%	-13.07%	-2.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.89%	-22.28%	-5.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.56%	-32.21%	-11.35%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.76%	-5.23%	-0.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.42%	-21.40%	+9.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.02%	3.20%	+0.82%

Volatility

FBCG vs. IUSG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a higher volatility of 8.27% compared to iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF (IUSG) at 7.16%. This indicates that FBCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IUSG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBCG	IUSG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.27%	7.16%	+1.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.50%	13.66%	+1.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.84%	16.92%	+2.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.00%	21.06%	+4.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.80%	20.48%	+5.32%

FBCG vs. IUSG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FBCG vs. IUSG - Dividend Comparison

FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, less than IUSG's 0.50% 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%
IUSG iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF	0.50%	0.53%	0.59%	1.12%	1.07%	0.59%	0.93%	1.64%	1.32%	1.28%	1.48%	1.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBCG and IUSG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, FBCG and IUSG 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 IUSG?

FBCG has higher volatility (8.27%) compared to IUSG (7.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBCG dropped -43.56% vs IUSG's -63.41%.

Which ETF is better, FBCG or IUSG?

On 5-year performance, IUSG leads with 13.77% vs 13.39% for FBCG. On fees, IUSG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, IUSG has been the lower-risk option at 7.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBCG or IUSG?

Over the 5-year period, IUSG has performed better with a 13.77% return vs 13.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBCG or IUSG?

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

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

IUSG has the higher dividend yield at 0.50%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FBCG and IUSG?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IUSG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 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.