FDRV vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FDRV (Fidelity Electric Vehicles and Future Transportation ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FDRV is a Transportation 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, FDRV returned 2.61%/yr vs 27.58%/yr for FBCG. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FDRV charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

FDRV vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Electric Vehicles and Future Transportation ETF (FDRV) 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, FDRV achieves a 17.13% return, which is significantly higher than FBCG's 10.08% return.

FDRV

• 1D: -4.46%
• 1M: -4.34%
• YTD: 17.13%
• 6M: 15.44%
• 1Y: 34.83%
• 3Y*: 2.61%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FBCG

• 1D: -2.80%
• 1M: -1.48%
• YTD: 10.08%
• 6M: 9.15%
• 1Y: 31.50%
• 3Y*: 27.58%
• 5Y*: 13.39%
• 10Y*: —

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

FDRV vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FDRV Fidelity Electric Vehicles and Future Transportation ETF	17.13%	24.32%	-21.73%	12.27%	-44.23%	7.10%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	10.08%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	6.06%

Correlation

The correlation between FDRV and FBCG is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 7, 2021	0.77

The correlation between FDRV and FBCG shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (3 years) to 0.77 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FDRV vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDRV	FBCG
Technology	48.6%	48.9%
Consumer Cyclical	38.8%	17.2%
Industrials	8.8%	5.6%
Basic Materials	3.5%	0.5%
Communication Services	-	17.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.3%
Energy	-	0.4%
Financial Services	-	2.2%
Healthcare	-	5.6%
Real Estate	-	0.6%
Utilities	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

FDRV vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDRV

FDRV Risk / Return Rank: 41
FDRV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FDRV Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
FDRV Omega Ratio Rank: 37
FDRV Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
FDRV Martin Ratio Rank: 42

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 46
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 45
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

FDRV vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Electric Vehicles and Future Transportation ETF (FDRV) 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.

	FDRV	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.29	1.59	-0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.80	2.17	-0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.28	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.24	2.09	+0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.46	7.85	-1.40

FDRV vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDRV Sharpe Ratio is 1.29, which is comparable to the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDRV 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

FDRV vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDRV drawdown since its inception was -63.89%, which is greater than FBCG's maximum drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDRV and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDRV	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-63.89%	-43.56%	-20.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.62%	-15.17%	-0.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-48.45%	-27.89%	-20.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-43.56%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-35.19%	-5.76%	-29.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-42.21%	-11.42%	-30.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.41%	4.02%	+1.39%

Volatility

FDRV vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Electric Vehicles and Future Transportation ETF (FDRV) has a higher volatility of 13.44% compared to Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) at 8.27%. This indicates that FDRV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FBCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDRV	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.44%	8.27%	+5.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.70%	15.50%	+6.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.09%	19.84%	+7.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.28%	26.00%	+6.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.28%	25.80%	+6.48%

FDRV vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDRV has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than FBCG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDRV vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

FDRV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, 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%
FDRV Fidelity Electric Vehicles and Future Transportation ETF	1.22%	1.14%	0.43%	0.24%	0.33%	0.04%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDRV and FBCG in my portfolio?

FDRV and FBCG have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDRV or FBCG?

FDRV has higher volatility (13.44%) compared to FBCG (8.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDRV dropped -63.89% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, FDRV or FBCG?

On 3-year performance, FBCG leads with 27.58% vs 2.61% for FDRV. On fees, FDRV is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FBCG has been the lower-risk option at 8.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDRV or FBCG?

Over the 3-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 27.58% return vs 2.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDRV or FBCG?

FDRV is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

FDRV has the higher dividend yield at 1.22%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FDRV and FBCG?

FDRV is categorized as Transportation Equities, while FBCG is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for FDRV and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 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.