FBOT vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FBOT (Fidelity Disruptive Automation ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FBOT is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while FBCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FBOT returned 39.88% vs 39.38% for FBCG. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FBOT charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

FBOT vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBOT achieves a 20.06% return, which is significantly higher than FBCG's 15.59% return.

FBOT

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 5.52%
• YTD: 20.06%
• 6M: 21.90%
• 1Y: 39.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FBCG

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

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

FBOT vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FBOT Fidelity Disruptive Automation ETF	20.06%	19.15%	12.58%	-1.03%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	15.59%	18.60%	39.05%	15.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FBOT and FBCG is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2023	0.82

The correlation between FBOT and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

FBOT vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBOT	FBCG
Industrials	51.0%	5.7%
Technology	37.5%	48.3%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	17.2%
Communication Services	4.2%	16.6%
Healthcare	0.9%	6.7%
Basic Materials	-	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.3%
Energy	-	0.4%
Financial Services	-	2.2%
Real Estate	-	0.7%
Utilities	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

FBOT vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBOT

FBOT Risk / Return Rank: 56
FBOT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
FBOT Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
FBOT Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FBOT Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
FBOT Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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

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.

FBOT vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptive Automation ETF (FBOT) and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG). 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.

	FBOT	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.98	2.14	-0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	2.84	-0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.36	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.64	2.61	+0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.50	10.14	+0.37
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FBOT vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBOT Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is comparable to the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBOT and FBCG, 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

	FBOT	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.98	2.14	-0.16
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.62	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.81	0.83	-0.02

Drawdowns

FBOT vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBOT drawdown since its inception was -23.61%, smaller than the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBOT and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBOT	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.61%	-43.56%	+19.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.17%	-15.17%	0.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-27.89%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-43.56%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.34%	-1.05%	+0.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.15%	-11.49%	+6.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.81%	3.90%	-0.09%

Volatility

FBOT vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Disruptive Automation ETF (FBOT) has a higher volatility of 5.59% compared to Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) at 4.79%. This indicates that FBOT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FBCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBOT	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.59%	4.79%	+0.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.00%	13.89%	+2.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.25%	18.55%	+1.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.95%	25.79%	-4.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.95%	25.72%	-4.77%

FBOT vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBOT has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than FBCG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBOT vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

FBOT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.59%, more than FBCG's 0.04% yield.

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%
FBOT Fidelity Disruptive Automation ETF	0.59%	0.81%	0.31%	0.20%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBOT and FBCG in my portfolio?

FBOT and FBCG have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FBOT or FBCG?

FBOT has higher volatility (5.59%) compared to FBCG (4.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBOT dropped -23.61% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, FBOT or FBCG?

On 1-year performance, FBOT leads with 39.88% vs 39.38% for FBCG. On fees, FBOT 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, FBOT or FBCG?

Over the 1-year period, FBOT has performed better with a 39.88% return vs 39.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBOT or FBCG?

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

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

FBOT has the higher dividend yield at 0.59%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FBOT and FBCG?

FBOT is categorized as Technology Equities, while FBCG is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FBOT and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 1.98), 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.