FMAG vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FMAG (Fidelity Magellan ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FMAG is a Global 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 5 years, FMAG returned 11.89%/yr vs 15.89%/yr for FBCG. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.59% expense ratio.

Performance

FMAG vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Magellan ETF (FMAG) 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, FMAG achieves a 8.00% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 15.85% return.

FMAG

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 3.34%
• YTD: 8.00%
• 6M: 7.59%
• 1Y: 11.45%
• 3Y*: 21.02%
• 5Y*: 11.89%
• 10Y*: —

FBCG

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 6.79%
• YTD: 15.85%
• 6M: 15.22%
• 1Y: 38.56%
• 3Y*: 30.88%
• 5Y*: 15.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

FMAG vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FMAG Fidelity Magellan ETF	8.00%	10.40%	28.52%	31.25%	-26.92%	25.37%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	15.85%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	12.18%

Correlation

The correlation between FMAG and FBCG is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021	0.91

The correlation between FMAG and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMAG vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMAG	FBCG
Technology	38.9%	48.3%
Industrials	16.1%	5.7%
Financial Services	14.3%	2.2%
Consumer Cyclical	12.6%	17.2%
Communication Services	6.1%	16.6%
Healthcare	4.4%	6.7%
Basic Materials	4.3%	0.6%
Utilities	2.3%	0.5%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	1.3%
Real Estate	1.4%	0.7%
Energy	-	0.4%

Return for Risk

FMAG vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMAG

FMAG Risk / Return Rank: 23
FMAG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
FMAG Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
FMAG Omega Ratio Rank: 23
FMAG Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FMAG Martin Ratio Rank: 23

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 59
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 60
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
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.

FMAG vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	FMAG	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.81	2.09	-1.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.22	2.79	-1.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.36	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.82	2.55	-1.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.91	9.93	-7.02
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FMAG vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMAG Sharpe Ratio is 0.81, which is lower than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMAG 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

	FMAG	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81	2.09	-1.28
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.60	0.62	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.62	0.83	-0.21

Drawdowns

FMAG vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMAG drawdown since its inception was -32.93%, smaller than the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMAG and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMAG	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.93%	-43.56%	+10.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.97%	-15.17%	+1.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.12%	-27.89%	+7.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.93%	-43.56%	+10.63%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.73%	-0.83%	+0.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.98%	-11.48%	+2.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.95%	3.90%	+0.05%

Volatility

FMAG vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Magellan ETF (FMAG) is 3.65%, while Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a volatility of 4.71%. This indicates that FMAG 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

	FMAG	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.65%	4.71%	-1.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.33%	13.89%	-2.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.22%	18.53%	-4.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.85%	25.78%	-5.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.68%	25.72%	-6.04%

FMAG vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FMAG and FBCG have an expense ratio of 0.59%.

Dividends

FMAG vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

FMAG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.08%, 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%
FMAG Fidelity Magellan ETF	0.08%	0.09%	0.15%	0.34%	0.23%	0.03%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMAG and FBCG in my portfolio?

FMAG and FBCG have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FMAG or FBCG?

FBCG has higher volatility (4.71%) compared to FMAG (3.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMAG dropped -32.93% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, FMAG or FBCG?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 15.89% vs 11.89% for FMAG. Both ETFs have the same 0.59% expense ratio. On volatility, FMAG has been the lower-risk option at 3.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMAG or FBCG?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 15.89% return vs 11.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMAG or FBCG?

FMAG and FBCG have the same expense ratio: 0.59% per year.

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

FMAG has the higher dividend yield at 0.08%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FMAG and FBCG?

FMAG is categorized as Global Equities, while FBCG is Large Cap Growth Equities.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 0.81), 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.