FDCF vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FDCF (Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FDCF is a Communications 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, FDCF returned 23.52% vs 39.38% for FBCG. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FDCF charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

FDCF vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF (FDCF) 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, FDCF achieves a 5.62% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 15.59% return.

FDCF

• 1D: -1.77%
• 1M: 3.38%
• YTD: 5.62%
• 6M: 7.71%
• 1Y: 23.52%
• 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)

FDCF vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF	5.62%	27.42%	28.37%	16.39%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	15.59%	18.60%	39.05%	15.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FDCF and FBCG is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2023	0.86

The correlation between FDCF and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDCF vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDCF	FBCG
Communication Services	50.2%	16.6%
Technology	36.5%	48.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.9%	17.2%
Industrials	1.4%	5.7%
Basic Materials	-	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.3%
Energy	-	0.4%
Financial Services	-	2.2%
Healthcare	-	6.7%
Real Estate	-	0.7%
Utilities	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

FDCF vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDCF

FDCF Risk / Return Rank: 31
FDCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
FDCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
FDCF Omega Ratio Rank: 34
FDCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FDCF Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

FDCF vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF (FDCF) 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.

	FDCF	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.29	2.14	-0.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	2.84	-1.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.36	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.31	2.61	-1.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.95	10.14	-6.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FDCF vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDCF Sharpe Ratio is 1.29, which is lower than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDCF 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

	FDCF	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.29	2.14	-0.85
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.62	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.29	0.83	+0.46

Drawdowns

FDCF vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDCF drawdown since its inception was -22.53%, smaller than the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDCF and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDCF	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.53%	-43.56%	+21.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.10%	-15.17%	-2.93%
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	-1.90%	-1.05%	-0.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.17%	-11.49%	+7.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.97%	3.90%	+2.07%

Volatility

FDCF vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF (FDCF) is 4.28%, while Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a volatility of 4.79%. This indicates that FDCF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FBCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDCF	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.28%	4.79%	-0.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.98%	13.89%	+0.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.36%	18.55%	-0.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.58%	25.79%	-5.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.58%	25.72%	-5.14%

FDCF vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FDCF vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

FDCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.03%, less 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%
FDCF Fidelity Disruptive Communications ETF	0.03%	0.09%	0.25%	0.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDCF and FBCG in my portfolio?

FDCF and FBCG have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDCF or FBCG?

FBCG has higher volatility (4.79%) compared to FDCF (4.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDCF dropped -22.53% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, FDCF or FBCG?

On 1-year performance, FBCG leads with 39.38% vs 23.52% for FDCF. On fees, FDCF is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FDCF has been the lower-risk option at 4.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDCF or FBCG?

Over the 1-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 39.38% return vs 23.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDCF or FBCG?

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

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

FBCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.04%, compared with 0.03% for FDCF.

What is the main difference between FDCF and FBCG?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 1.29), 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.