FCPGX vs. VRTGX
Compare and contrast key facts about Fidelity Small Cap Growth Fund (FCPGX) and Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth Index Fund Institutional Shares (VRTGX).
FCPGX is managed by Fidelity. It was launched on Nov 3, 2004. VRTGX is managed by Vanguard. It was launched on May 25, 2011.
Performance
FCPGX vs. VRTGX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
FCPGX vs. VRTGX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FCPGX Fidelity Small Cap Growth Fund | -0.83% | 11.20% | 20.56% | 19.02% | -25.34% | 10.50% | 36.41% | 36.31% | -4.57% | 28.99% |
VRTGX Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth Index Fund Institutional Shares | -2.79% | 12.97% | 15.26% | 18.80% | -26.30% | 2.82% | 34.81% | 28.84% | -9.21% | 22.27% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FCPGX achieves a -0.83% return, which is significantly higher than VRTGX's -2.79% return. Over the past 10 years, FCPGX has outperformed VRTGX with an annualized return of 13.40%, while VRTGX has yielded a comparatively lower 9.83% annualized return.
FCPGX
- 1D
- 4.93%
- 1M
- -6.50%
- YTD
- -0.83%
- 6M
- 2.23%
- 1Y
- 24.11%
- 3Y*
- 13.88%
- 5Y*
- 4.16%
- 10Y*
- 13.40%
VRTGX
- 1D
- 4.27%
- 1M
- -7.24%
- YTD
- -2.79%
- 6M
- -1.59%
- 1Y
- 23.68%
- 3Y*
- 12.32%
- 5Y*
- 1.34%
- 10Y*
- 9.83%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
FCPGX vs. VRTGX - Expense Ratio Comparison
FCPGX has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than VRTGX's 0.08% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
FCPGX vs. VRTGX — Risk / Return Rank
FCPGX
VRTGX
FCPGX vs. VRTGX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Small Cap Growth Fund (FCPGX) and Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth Index Fund Institutional Shares (VRTGX). 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.
| FCPGX | VRTGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.97 | 0.94 | +0.03 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.47 | 1.46 | +0.01 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.18 | +0.01 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.70 | 1.54 | +0.16 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.35 | 5.21 | +1.13 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FCPGX | VRTGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.97 | 0.94 | +0.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.18 | 0.05 | +0.12 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.59 | 0.40 | +0.19 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.50 | 0.46 | +0.03 |
Correlation
The correlation between FCPGX and VRTGX is 0.97, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
FCPGX vs. VRTGX - Dividend Comparison
FCPGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.44%, more than VRTGX's 0.73% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FCPGX Fidelity Small Cap Growth Fund | 6.44% | 6.38% | 1.37% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 19.27% | 8.19% | 5.31% | 14.35% | 6.88% | 1.53% | 4.32% |
VRTGX Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth Index Fund Institutional Shares | 0.73% | 0.57% | 0.62% | 0.85% | 0.78% | 0.54% | 0.53% | 0.90% | 0.85% | 0.75% | 1.07% | 0.84% |
Drawdowns
FCPGX vs. VRTGX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FCPGX drawdown since its inception was -59.11%, which is greater than VRTGX's maximum drawdown of -41.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCPGX and VRTGX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| FCPGX | VRTGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.11% | -41.97% | -17.14% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.76% | -14.80% | +1.04% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -39.04% | -40.48% | +1.44% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -39.04% | -41.97% | +2.93% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.84% | -11.16% | +2.32% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.77% | -10.53% | -0.24% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.69% | 4.36% | -0.67% |
Volatility
FCPGX vs. VRTGX - Volatility Comparison
Fidelity Small Cap Growth Fund (FCPGX) has a higher volatility of 9.87% compared to Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth Index Fund Institutional Shares (VRTGX) at 8.82%. This indicates that FCPGX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VRTGX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| FCPGX | VRTGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.87% | 8.82% | +1.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.73% | 16.59% | +0.14% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.94% | 25.39% | -0.45% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.43% | 24.53% | -1.10% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.74% | 24.45% | -1.71% |