FFLG vs. FBCG

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FFLG (Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds from Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FFLG returned 9.43%/yr vs 13.15%/yr for FBCG. Their 0.97 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. FFLG charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

FFLG vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) 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, FFLG achieves a 9.18% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 11.42% return.

FFLG

• 1D: 2.41%
• 1M: -1.57%
• 6M: 8.17%
• YTD: 9.18%
• 1Y: 20.68%
• 3Y*: 23.88%
• 5Y*: 9.43%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.48%

FBCG

• 1D: 2.21%
• 1M: 0.02%
• 6M: 11.39%
• YTD: 11.42%
• 1Y: 24.47%
• 3Y*: 26.40%
• 5Y*: 13.15%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.73%

*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	$37.99M	$34.97M	$38.44M
FFLG Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF	$3.52M	$6.28M	$4.13M

FFLG vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FFLG Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF	9.18%	19.61%	32.29%	49.71%	-37.86%	2.32%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	11.42%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	13.95%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLG and FBCG is 0.98 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.98
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.98
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2021	0.98

The correlation between FFLG and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

FFLG vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFLG	FBCG
Technology	49.2%	52.1%
Communication Services	16.1%	15.2%
Healthcare	7.4%	5.6%
Industrials	7.2%	5.8%
Consumer Cyclical	6.9%	16.1%
Financial Services	3.6%	2.2%
Utilities	1.7%	0.4%
Basic Materials	1.2%	0.5%
Real Estate	0.9%	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	0.6%	1.3%
Energy	0.3%	0.3%

Return for Risk

FFLG vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLG

FFLG Risk / Return Rank: 39
FFLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
FFLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
FFLG Omega Ratio Rank: 36
FFLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
FFLG Martin Ratio Rank: 42

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 46
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 44
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

FFLG vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	FFLG	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.97	1.19	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.43	1.71	-0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.21	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.46	1.62	-0.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.69	5.52	-0.82

FFLG vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLG Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is comparable to the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLG 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

FFLG vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLG drawdown since its inception was -44.52%, roughly equal to the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLG and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLG	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.52%	-43.56%	-0.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.23%	-15.17%	+0.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.72%	-27.89%	+1.17%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.52%	-43.56%	-0.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.12%	-4.62%	-2.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.01%	-11.31%	-2.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.41%	4.45%	-0.04%

Volatility

FFLG vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) has a higher volatility of 7.78% compared to Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) at 6.68%. This indicates that FFLG'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

	FFLG	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.78%	6.68%	+1.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.63%	16.57%	+1.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.35%	20.68%	+0.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.80%	26.11%	-0.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.52%	25.74%	-0.22%

FFLG vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLG has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is lower than FBCG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLG vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

FFLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, 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%
FFLG Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF	0.13%	0.14%	0.09%	0.00%	1.50%	0.55%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFLG and FBCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, FFLG and FBCG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FFLG or FBCG?

FFLG has higher volatility (7.78%) compared to FBCG (6.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLG dropped -44.52% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, FFLG or FBCG?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 13.15% vs 9.43% for FFLG. On fees, FFLG is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, FBCG has been the lower-risk option at 6.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFLG or FBCG?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 13.15% return vs 9.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFLG or FBCG?

FFLG is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

FFLG has the higher dividend yield at 0.13%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FFLG and FBCG?

Their fees differ too: 0.38% for FFLG and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.19 vs 0.97), 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.