FFLG vs. ILCG

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

FFLG (Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FFLG is actively managed, while ILCG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FFLG returned 10.05%/yr vs 12.23%/yr for ILCG. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FFLG charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

FFLG vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with FFLG having a 10.57% return and ILCG slightly lower at 10.18%.

FFLG

• 1D: -2.46%
• 1M: -1.35%
• 6M: 8.61%
• YTD: 10.57%
• 1Y: 23.81%
• 3Y*: 23.89%
• 5Y*: 10.05%
• 10Y*: —

ILCG

• 1D: -1.79%
• 1M: 0.20%
• 6M: 8.25%
• YTD: 10.18%
• 1Y: 18.17%
• 3Y*: 22.41%
• 5Y*: 12.23%
• 10Y*: 17.52%

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

FFLG vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FFLG Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF	10.57%	19.61%	32.29%	49.71%	-37.86%	2.32%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	10.18%	16.71%	32.82%	40.41%	-31.75%	20.16%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLG and ILCG is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.97
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2021	0.96

The correlation between FFLG and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

FFLG vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFLG	ILCG
Technology	50.7%	53.1%
Communication Services	18.4%	13.5%
Industrials	6.8%	7.7%
Healthcare	6.5%	5.2%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	10.1%
Financial Services	6.2%	5.5%
Utilities	1.6%	0.7%
Basic Materials	1.3%	1.0%
Real Estate	0.7%	1.3%
Energy	0.6%	0.4%
Consumer Defensive	0.5%	1.4%

Return for Risk

FFLG vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLG

FFLG Risk / Return Rank: 41
FFLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
FFLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
FFLG Omega Ratio Rank: 39
FFLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
FFLG Martin Ratio Rank: 46

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 33
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 33
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.17	1.01	+0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	1.44	+0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.19	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	1.17	+0.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.13	3.91	+2.22

FFLG vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.17, which is comparable to the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLG and ILCG, 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. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLG drawdown since its inception was -44.52%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLG and ILCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLG	ILCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.52%	-52.98%	+8.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.23%	-15.65%	+1.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.72%	-23.10%	-3.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.52%	-35.38%	-9.14%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.94%	-4.74%	-1.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.07%	-8.20%	-5.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.89%	4.66%	-0.77%

Volatility

FFLG vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) has a higher volatility of 8.53% compared to iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) at 7.23%. This indicates that FFLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFLG	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.53%	7.23%	+1.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.74%	15.08%	+1.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.53%	18.10%	+2.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.68%	22.30%	+3.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.50%	21.65%	+3.85%

FFLG vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLG has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLG vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

FFLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than ILCG's 0.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.42%	0.47%	0.50%	0.69%	0.75%	0.34%	0.28%	0.54%	0.81%	0.89%	0.95%	0.99%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFLG and ILCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, FFLG and ILCG 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 ILCG?

FFLG has higher volatility (8.53%) compared to ILCG (7.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLG dropped -44.52% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

Which ETF is better, FFLG or ILCG?

On 5-year performance, ILCG leads with 12.23% vs 10.05% for FFLG. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ILCG has been the lower-risk option at 7.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFLG or ILCG?

Over the 5-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 12.23% return vs 10.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFLG or ILCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for FFLG.

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

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.13% for FFLG.

What is the main difference between FFLG and ILCG?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for FFLG and 0.04% for ILCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.17 vs 1.01), 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.