FFLG vs. DGRO

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FFLG (Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF) and DGRO (iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FFLG is actively managed, while DGRO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FFLG returned 10.19%/yr vs 11.00%/yr for DGRO. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FFLG charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for DGRO.

Performance

FFLG vs. DGRO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) and iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFLG achieves a 11.85% return, which is significantly higher than DGRO's 9.19% return.

FFLG

• 1D: -2.73%
• 1M: -1.13%
• YTD: 11.85%
• 6M: 10.60%
• 1Y: 32.21%
• 3Y*: 26.87%
• 5Y*: 10.19%
• 10Y*: —

DGRO

• 1D: 0.32%
• 1M: 0.80%
• YTD: 9.19%
• 6M: 8.52%
• 1Y: 22.22%
• 3Y*: 16.92%
• 5Y*: 11.00%
• 10Y*: 13.62%

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

FFLG vs. DGRO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FFLG Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF	11.85%	19.61%	32.29%	49.71%	-37.86%	2.32%
DGRO iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF	9.19%	15.69%	16.62%	10.47%	-7.91%	25.86%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLG and DGRO is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2021	0.61

Over the past year, the correlation between FFLG and DGRO has dropped to 0.40 - well below their long-term average of 0.61, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FFLG vs. DGRO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFLG	DGRO
Technology	52.8%	22.0%
Communication Services	13.5%	0.1%
Consumer Cyclical	10.8%	5.4%
Healthcare	6.7%	16.5%
Industrials	5.7%	10.4%
Financial Services	3.1%	20.6%
Basic Materials	1.4%	2.4%
Utilities	1.4%	6.4%
Real Estate	0.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.5%	11.1%
Energy	0.3%	5.1%

Return for Risk

FFLG vs. DGRO — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLG

FFLG Risk / Return Rank: 48
FFLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
FFLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
FFLG Omega Ratio Rank: 46
FFLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
FFLG Martin Ratio Rank: 52

DGRO

DGRO Risk / Return Rank: 75
DGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
DGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
DGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 75
DGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
DGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

FFLG vs. DGRO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) and iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO). 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.

	FFLG	DGRO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.63	2.35	-0.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.19	3.41	-1.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.42	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.27	3.45	-1.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.62	13.31	-4.70

FFLG vs. DGRO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is lower than the DGRO Sharpe Ratio of 2.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLG and DGRO, 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

FFLG vs. DGRO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLG drawdown since its inception was -44.52%, which is greater than DGRO's maximum drawdown of -35.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLG and DGRO.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLG	DGRO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.52%	-35.10%	-9.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.23%	-6.47%	-7.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.72%	-14.03%	-12.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.52%	-19.31%	-25.21%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.10%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.84%	-0.90%	-3.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.16%	-3.43%	-10.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.75%	1.67%	+2.08%

Volatility

FFLG vs. DGRO - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) has a higher volatility of 8.52% compared to iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (DGRO) at 2.63%. This indicates that FFLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DGRO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFLG	DGRO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.52%	2.63%	+5.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.85%	6.94%	+8.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.86%	9.53%	+10.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.56%	13.80%	+11.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.49%	16.60%	+8.89%

FFLG vs. DGRO - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLG has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is higher than DGRO's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLG vs. DGRO - Dividend Comparison

FFLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than DGRO's 1.97% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DGRO iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF	1.97%	2.09%	2.26%	2.45%	2.34%	1.93%	2.30%	2.21%	2.44%	2.03%	2.27%	2.52%
FFLG Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF	0.13%	0.14%	0.09%	0.00%	1.50%	0.55%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFLG and DGRO in my portfolio?

FFLG and DGRO have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FFLG or DGRO?

FFLG has higher volatility (8.52%) compared to DGRO (2.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLG dropped -44.52% vs DGRO's -35.10%.

Which ETF is better, FFLG or DGRO?

On 5-year performance, DGRO leads with 11.00% vs 10.19% for FFLG. On fees, DGRO is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, DGRO has been the lower-risk option at 2.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFLG or DGRO?

Over the 5-year period, DGRO has performed better with a 11.00% return vs 10.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFLG or DGRO?

DGRO is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for FFLG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FFLG or DGRO?

DGRO has the higher dividend yield at 1.97%, compared with 0.13% for FFLG.

What is the main difference between FFLG and DGRO?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for FFLG and 0.08% for DGRO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DGRO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.35 vs 1.63), 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.