FDIF vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FDIF (Fidelity Disruptors ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds from Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FDIF returned 22.85% vs 39.38% for FBCG. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FDIF charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

FDIF vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) 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, FDIF achieves a 10.12% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 15.59% return.

FDIF

• 1D: -0.90%
• 1M: 5.86%
• YTD: 10.12%
• 6M: 10.33%
• 1Y: 22.85%
• 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)

FDIF vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FDIF Fidelity Disruptors ETF	10.12%	13.83%	19.74%	6.49%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	15.59%	18.60%	39.05%	13.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FDIF and FBCG is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 21, 2023	0.87

The correlation between FDIF and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDIF vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDIF	FBCG
Technology	38.5%	48.3%
Healthcare	17.8%	6.7%
Communication Services	13.8%	16.6%
Industrials	12.0%	5.7%
Financial Services	11.8%	2.2%
Consumer Cyclical	6.1%	17.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.7%
Basic Materials	-	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.3%
Energy	-	0.4%
Utilities	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

FDIF vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDIF

FDIF Risk / Return Rank: 36
FDIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FDIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
FDIF Omega Ratio Rank: 36
FDIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
FDIF Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

FDIF vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) 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.

	FDIF	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.35	2.14	-0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	2.84	-0.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.36	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.55	2.61	-1.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.86	10.14	-4.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FDIF vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.35, which is lower than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDIF 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

	FDIF	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.35	2.14	-0.79
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.62	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.93	0.83	+0.10

Drawdowns

FDIF vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDIF drawdown since its inception was -22.63%, smaller than the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDIF and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDIF	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.63%	-43.56%	+20.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.80%	-15.17%	+0.37%
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	-0.90%	-1.05%	+0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-11.49%	+7.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.91%	3.90%	+0.01%

Volatility

FDIF vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) is 4.11%, while Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a volatility of 4.79%. This indicates that FDIF 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

	FDIF	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.11%	4.79%	-0.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.37%	13.89%	-0.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.02%	18.55%	-1.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.59%	25.79%	-7.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.59%	25.72%	-7.13%

FDIF vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FDIF vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

FDIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.30%, 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%
FDIF Fidelity Disruptors ETF	0.30%	0.36%	0.35%	0.21%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDIF and FBCG in my portfolio?

FDIF and FBCG have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDIF or FBCG?

FBCG has higher volatility (4.79%) compared to FDIF (4.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDIF dropped -22.63% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, FDIF or FBCG?

On 1-year performance, FBCG leads with 39.38% vs 22.85% for FDIF. On fees, FDIF is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FDIF has been the lower-risk option at 4.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDIF or FBCG?

Over the 1-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 39.38% return vs 22.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDIF or FBCG?

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

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

FDIF has the higher dividend yield at 0.30%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FDIF and FBCG?

Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FDIF and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 1.35), 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.