FCOM vs. ILCG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FCOM (Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - FCOM tracks the MSCI USA IMI Telecommunication Services 25/50 Index while ILCG tracks the Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FCOM returned 11.99%/yr vs 18.15%/yr for ILCG. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FCOM charges 0.08%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

FCOM vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCOM achieves a -1.60% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 14.48% return. Over the past 10 years, FCOM has underperformed ILCG with an annualized return of 11.99%, while ILCG has yielded a comparatively higher 18.15% annualized return.

FCOM

• 1D: -0.87%
• 1M: -2.85%
• YTD: -1.60%
• 6M: 0.27%
• 1Y: 20.03%
• 3Y*: 23.77%
• 5Y*: 7.42%
• 10Y*: 11.99%

ILCG

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: 7.68%
• YTD: 14.48%
• 6M: 14.61%
• 1Y: 29.51%
• 3Y*: 26.55%
• 5Y*: 14.95%
• 10Y*: 18.15%

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

FCOM vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FCOM Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF	-1.60%	26.06%	33.05%	44.65%	-38.97%	13.88%	28.33%	26.69%	-5.33%	8.20%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	14.48%	16.71%	32.82%	40.41%	-31.75%	24.33%	38.56%	33.22%	2.06%	30.57%

Correlation

The correlation between FCOM and ILCG is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2013	0.73

The correlation between FCOM and ILCG shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (1 year) to 0.82 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FCOM vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCOM	ILCG
Communication Services	98.5%	14.5%
Technology	1.2%	49.8%
Consumer Cyclical	0.3%	10.6%
Real Estate	0.1%	1.4%
Basic Materials	-	1.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.6%
Energy	-	0.5%
Financial Services	-	6.0%
Healthcare	-	5.3%
Industrials	-	8.3%
Utilities	-	0.8%

Return for Risk

FCOM vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCOM

FCOM Risk / Return Rank: 34
FCOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
FCOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
FCOM Omega Ratio Rank: 34
FCOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
FCOM Martin Ratio Rank: 36

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 46
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 50
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 41

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.

FCOM vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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.

	FCOM	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	1.82	-0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.97	2.45	-0.48
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.32	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.49	1.89	-0.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.67	6.68	-1.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FCOM vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCOM Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is comparable to the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCOM and ILCG, 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

	FCOM	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.31	1.82	-0.51
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35	0.68	-0.33
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.57	0.85	-0.27
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.57	0.59	-0.02

Drawdowns

FCOM vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCOM drawdown since its inception was -46.76%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCOM and ILCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCOM	ILCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.76%	-52.98%	+6.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.48%	-15.65%	+2.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.16%	-23.10%	+1.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-46.76%	-35.38%	-11.38%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.76%	-35.38%	-11.38%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.88%	-1.02%	-3.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.66%	-8.22%	-0.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.54%	4.43%	-0.89%

Volatility

FCOM vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF (FCOM) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) have volatilities of 4.24% and 4.40%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCOM	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.24%	4.40%	-0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.02%	12.81%	-1.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.38%	16.31%	-0.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.17%	22.00%	-0.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.96%	21.53%	-0.57%

FCOM vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCOM has a 0.08% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FCOM vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

FCOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%, more than ILCG's 0.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCOM Fidelity MSCI Communication Services Index ETF	0.94%	0.88%	0.87%	0.77%	1.04%	0.90%	0.68%	0.86%	2.78%	11.70%	2.27%	2.92%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.40%	0.47%	0.50%	0.69%	0.75%	0.34%	0.28%	0.54%	0.81%	0.89%	0.95%	0.99%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCOM and ILCG in my portfolio?

FCOM and ILCG have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FCOM or ILCG?

ILCG has higher volatility (4.40%) compared to FCOM (4.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCOM dropped -46.76% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

Which ETF is better, FCOM or ILCG?

On 10-year performance, ILCG leads with 18.15% vs 11.99% for FCOM. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, FCOM has been the lower-risk option at 4.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FCOM or ILCG?

Over the 10-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 18.15% return vs 11.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCOM or ILCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.08% for FCOM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FCOM or ILCG?

FCOM has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.40% for ILCG.

What is the main difference between FCOM and ILCG?

FCOM tracks MSCI USA IMI Telecommunication Services 25/50 Index, while ILCG tracks Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.08% for FCOM and 0.04% for ILCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs 1.31), 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.