FBCG vs. IWP

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) and IWP (iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FBCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while IWP is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Midcap Growth Index. FBCG is actively managed, while IWP is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FBCG returned 14.88%/yr vs 5.99%/yr for IWP. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FBCG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for IWP.

Performance

FBCG vs. IWP - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBCG achieves a 11.60% return, which is significantly higher than IWP's 1.66% return.

FBCG

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 0.82%
• YTD: 11.60%
• 6M: 10.83%
• 1Y: 33.02%
• 3Y*: 29.20%
• 5Y*: 14.88%
• 10Y*: —

IWP

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 1.28%
• YTD: 1.66%
• 6M: 0.18%
• 1Y: 2.82%
• 3Y*: 15.01%
• 5Y*: 5.99%
• 10Y*: 12.22%

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

FBCG vs. IWP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	11.60%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	42.99%
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	1.66%	8.45%	21.86%	25.70%	-26.90%	12.60%	30.56%

Correlation

The correlation between FBCG and IWP is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2020	0.87

The correlation between FBCG and IWP shifts across timeframes, from 0.73 (1 year) to 0.87 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FBCG vs. IWP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBCG	IWP
Technology	48.3%	20.0%
Consumer Cyclical	17.2%	21.1%
Communication Services	16.6%	4.2%
Healthcare	6.7%	13.5%
Industrials	5.7%	24.2%
Financial Services	2.2%	6.9%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	1.5%
Real Estate	0.7%	1.4%
Basic Materials	0.6%	0.4%
Utilities	0.5%	2.9%
Energy	0.4%	3.8%

Return for Risk

FBCG vs. IWP — 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: 57
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 54

IWP

IWP Risk / Return Rank: 12
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 11
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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. IWP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP). 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	IWP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.75	0.17	+1.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.33	0.36	+1.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.04	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.19	0.19	+2.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.45	0.56	+7.89
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. IWP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is higher than the IWP Sharpe Ratio of 0.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBCG and IWP, 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	IWP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.75	0.17	+1.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58	0.27	+0.31
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.57	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.80	0.42	+0.38

Drawdowns

FBCG vs. IWP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBCG drawdown since its inception was -43.56%, smaller than the maximum IWP drawdown of -56.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBCG and IWP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBCG	IWP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.56%	-56.92%	+13.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.17%	-14.79%	-0.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.89%	-25.20%	-2.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.56%	-38.62%	-4.94%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-38.62%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.46%	-4.08%	-0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.47%	-9.68%	-1.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.92%	5.08%	-1.16%

Volatility

FBCG vs. IWP - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a higher volatility of 6.44% compared to iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) at 4.62%. This indicates that FBCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBCG	IWP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.44%	4.62%	+1.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.61%	12.93%	+1.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.05%	16.71%	+2.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.86%	22.34%	+3.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.76%	21.70%	+4.06%

FBCG vs. IWP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBCG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than IWP's 0.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBCG vs. IWP - Dividend Comparison

FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, less than IWP's 0.33% 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%
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.33%	0.37%	0.40%	0.54%	0.77%	0.30%	0.38%	0.59%	1.02%	0.78%	1.16%	0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBCG and IWP in my portfolio?

FBCG and IWP have a correlation of 0.73, 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 IWP?

FBCG has higher volatility (6.44%) compared to IWP (4.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBCG dropped -43.56% vs IWP's -56.92%.

Which ETF is better, FBCG or IWP?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 14.88% vs 5.99% for IWP. On fees, IWP is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, IWP has been the lower-risk option at 4.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBCG or IWP?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 14.88% return vs 5.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBCG or IWP?

IWP is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

IWP has the higher dividend yield at 0.33%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FBCG and IWP?

FBCG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while IWP is Mid Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FBCG and 0.23% for IWP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs 0.17), 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.