FDFF vs. FBCG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

FDFF (Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FDFF is a Financials 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 3 years, FDFF returned 10.71%/yr vs 24.38%/yr for FBCG. Their 0.60 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FDFF charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

FDFF vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF (FDFF) 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, FDFF achieves a 0.41% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 9.01% return.

FDFF

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: 3.42%
• 6M: 2.35%
• YTD: 0.41%
• 1Y: -3.41%
• 3Y*: 10.71%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.72%

FBCG

• 1D: 1.15%
• 1M: -2.14%
• 6M: 9.63%
• YTD: 9.01%
• 1Y: 21.78%
• 3Y*: 24.38%
• 5Y*: 12.83%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.34%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	$32.87M	$33.69M	$39.51M
FDFF Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF	$123.29K	$145.91K	$130.56K

FDFF vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FDFF Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF	0.41%	-2.75%	27.86%	16.58%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	9.01%	18.60%	39.05%	17.19%

Correlation

The correlation between FDFF and FBCG is 0.52, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2023	0.60

The correlation between FDFF and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDFF vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDFF	FBCG
Financial Services	75.7%	2.2%
Technology	18.5%	52.1%
Industrials	4.1%	5.8%
Real Estate	0.9%	0.6%
Consumer Cyclical	0.8%	16.1%
Basic Materials	-	0.5%
Communication Services	-	15.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.3%
Energy	-	0.3%
Healthcare	-	5.6%
Utilities	-	0.4%

Return for Risk

FDFF vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FDFF

FDFF Risk / Return Rank: 7
FDFF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
FDFF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
FDFF Omega Ratio Rank: 7
FDFF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
FDFF Martin Ratio Rank: 7

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 37
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 40

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FDFF vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

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.

	FDFF	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.30	0.91	-1.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.29	1.36	-1.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	1.17	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.27	1.24	-1.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.54	4.24	-4.78

FDFF vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDFF Sharpe Ratio is -0.30, which is lower than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 0.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDFF 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.

Drawdowns

FDFF vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDFF drawdown since its inception was -23.06%, smaller than the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDFF and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDFF	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.06%	-43.56%	+20.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.60%	-15.17%	-5.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.06%	-27.89%	+4.83%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-43.56%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.81%	-6.68%	-2.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.66%	-11.32%	+4.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.26%	4.44%	+5.82%

Volatility

FDFF vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF (FDFF) is 4.91%, while Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a volatility of 6.38%. This indicates that FDFF 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

	FDFF	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.91%	6.38%	-1.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.92%	16.48%	-1.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.65%	20.69%	-2.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.94%	26.08%	-7.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.94%	25.73%	-6.79%

FDFF vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FDFF vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

FDFF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%, 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%
FDFF Fidelity Disruptive Finance ETF	0.99%	0.86%	0.70%	0.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDFF and FBCG in my portfolio?

FDFF and FBCG have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDFF or FBCG?

FBCG has higher volatility (6.38%) compared to FDFF (4.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDFF dropped -23.06% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, FDFF or FBCG?

On 3-year performance, FBCG leads with 24.38% vs 10.71% for FDFF. On fees, FDFF is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FDFF has been the lower-risk option at 4.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDFF or FBCG?

Over the 3-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 24.38% return vs 10.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDFF or FBCG?

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

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

FDFF has the higher dividend yield at 0.99%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FDFF and FBCG?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.91 vs -0.30), 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.