FBCG vs. SCHG

Last updated Jun 17, 2026

FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) and SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FBCG is actively managed, while SCHG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FBCG returned 14.60%/yr vs 14.34%/yr for SCHG. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FBCG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHG.

Performance

FBCG vs. SCHG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBCG achieves a 13.20% return, which is significantly higher than SCHG's 4.24% return.

FBCG

• 1D: -1.26%
• 1M: 1.77%
• YTD: 13.20%
• 6M: 15.03%
• 1Y: 34.41%
• 3Y*: 28.37%
• 5Y*: 14.60%
• 10Y*: —

SCHG

• 1D: -0.76%
• 1M: -0.88%
• YTD: 4.24%
• 6M: 4.94%
• 1Y: 20.75%
• 3Y*: 22.96%
• 5Y*: 14.34%
• 10Y*: 18.76%

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

FBCG vs. SCHG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	13.20%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	41.44%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	4.24%	17.50%	34.95%	50.10%	-31.80%	28.11%	29.32%

Correlation

The correlation between FBCG and SCHG is 0.94, 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	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020	0.96

The correlation between FBCG and SCHG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

FBCG vs. SCHG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBCG	SCHG
Technology	48.9%	46.7%
Consumer Cyclical	17.2%	12.4%
Communication Services	17.1%	15.3%
Industrials	5.6%	6.0%
Healthcare	5.6%	8.4%
Financial Services	2.2%	6.6%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	1.6%
Real Estate	0.6%	0.5%
Basic Materials	0.5%	1.3%
Utilities	0.5%	0.4%
Energy	0.4%	0.7%

Return for Risk

FBCG vs. SCHG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 51
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 51
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 52

SCHG

SCHG Risk / Return Rank: 32
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 35
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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. SCHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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	SCHG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.77	1.30	+0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.38	1.80	+0.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.23	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.28	1.27	+1.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.65	4.18	+4.46

FBCG vs. SCHG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is higher than the SCHG Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBCG and SCHG, 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. SCHG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBCG drawdown since its inception was -43.56%, which is greater than SCHG's maximum drawdown of -34.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBCG and SCHG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBCG	SCHG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.56%	-34.59%	-8.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.17%	-16.41%	+1.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.89%	-23.39%	-4.50%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.56%	-34.59%	-8.97%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.59%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.09%	-3.80%	+0.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.44%	-5.20%	-6.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.99%	4.97%	-0.98%

Volatility

FBCG vs. SCHG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a higher volatility of 7.63% compared to Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG) at 5.51%. This indicates that FBCG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SCHG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBCG	SCHG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.63%	5.51%	+2.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.24%	12.44%	+2.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.55%	16.08%	+3.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.95%	22.36%	+3.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.79%	21.60%	+4.19%

FBCG vs. SCHG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FBCG vs. SCHG - Dividend Comparison

FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, less than SCHG's 0.37% 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%
SCHG Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF	0.37%	0.36%	0.39%	0.46%	0.55%	0.42%	0.52%	0.82%	1.27%	1.01%	1.04%	1.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBCG and SCHG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, FBCG and SCHG 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 SCHG?

FBCG has higher volatility (7.63%) compared to SCHG (5.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBCG dropped -43.56% vs SCHG's -34.59%.

Which ETF is better, FBCG or SCHG?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 14.60% vs 14.34% for SCHG. On fees, SCHG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, SCHG has been the lower-risk option at 5.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBCG or SCHG?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 14.60% return vs 14.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBCG or SCHG?

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

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

SCHG has the higher dividend yield at 0.37%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FBCG and SCHG?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FBCG and 0.04% for SCHG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.30), 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.