FBCG vs. PFM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FBCG is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FBCG returned 13.39%/yr vs 10.77%/yr for PFM. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FBCG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

FBCG vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). 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 PFM's 7.43% return.

FBCG

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

PFM

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 0.12%
• YTD: 7.43%
• 6M: 6.87%
• 1Y: 18.00%
• 3Y*: 15.64%
• 5Y*: 10.77%
• 10Y*: 11.76%

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

FBCG vs. PFM - 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%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	7.43%	14.00%	16.87%	11.40%	-6.22%	23.08%	14.86%

Correlation

The correlation between FBCG and PFM is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020	0.64

The correlation between FBCG and PFM shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (1 year) to 0.67 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FBCG vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBCG	PFM
Technology	48.9%	27.6%
Consumer Cyclical	17.2%	3.7%
Communication Services	17.1%	1.1%
Industrials	5.6%	10.7%
Healthcare	5.6%	15.1%
Financial Services	2.2%	17.9%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	11.1%
Real Estate	0.6%	2.0%
Basic Materials	0.5%	2.8%
Utilities	0.5%	3.9%
Energy	0.4%	4.3%

Return for Risk

FBCG vs. PFM — 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

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 60
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 59
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). 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	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.59	1.91	-0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.17	2.79	-0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.34	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.09	2.55	-0.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.85	10.32	-2.46

FBCG vs. PFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.59, which is comparable to the PFM Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBCG and PFM, 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. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBCG drawdown since its inception was -43.56%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBCG and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBCG	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.56%	-53.21%	+9.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.17%	-7.09%	-8.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.89%	-14.50%	-13.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.56%	-17.81%	-25.75%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.76%	-1.01%	-4.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.42%	-6.93%	-4.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.02%	1.75%	+2.27%

Volatility

FBCG vs. PFM - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a higher volatility of 8.27% compared to Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM) at 2.48%. This indicates that FBCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PFM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBCG	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.27%	2.48%	+5.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.50%	7.21%	+8.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.84%	9.53%	+10.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.00%	13.51%	+12.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.80%	15.20%	+10.60%

FBCG vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBCG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBCG vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, less than PFM's 1.36% 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%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	1.36%	1.41%	1.58%	1.86%	1.95%	1.69%	1.92%	1.94%	2.27%	1.70%	2.56%	2.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBCG and PFM in my portfolio?

FBCG and PFM have a correlation of 0.57, 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 PFM?

FBCG has higher volatility (8.27%) compared to PFM (2.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBCG dropped -43.56% vs PFM's -53.21%.

Which ETF is better, FBCG or PFM?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 13.39% vs 10.77% for PFM. On fees, PFM is cheaper at 0.53% per year. On volatility, PFM has been the lower-risk option at 2.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBCG or PFM?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 13.39% return vs 10.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBCG or PFM?

PFM is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.36%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FBCG and PFM?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FBCG and 0.53% for PFM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 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.