FMET vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FMET (Fidelity Metaverse ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FMET is a Communications 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, FMET returned 17.27%/yr vs 31.06%/yr for FBCG. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FMET charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

FMET vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) 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, FMET achieves a 11.46% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 16.81% return.

FMET

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: 9.41%
• YTD: 11.46%
• 6M: 11.72%
• 1Y: 30.24%
• 3Y*: 17.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FBCG

• 1D: 0.99%
• 1M: 8.89%
• YTD: 16.81%
• 6M: 16.77%
• 1Y: 42.17%
• 3Y*: 31.06%
• 5Y*: 16.42%
• 10Y*: —

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

FMET vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	11.46%	21.93%	6.76%	39.18%	-16.56%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	16.81%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-23.17%

Correlation

The correlation between FMET and FBCG is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 22, 2022	0.86

The correlation between FMET and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

FMET vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMET	FBCG
Technology	56.5%	48.3%
Communication Services	35.2%	16.6%
Real Estate	8.3%	0.7%
Basic Materials	-	0.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	17.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.3%
Energy	-	0.4%
Financial Services	-	2.2%
Healthcare	-	6.7%
Industrials	-	5.7%
Utilities	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

FMET vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMET

FMET Risk / Return Rank: 36
FMET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
FMET Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
FMET Omega Ratio Rank: 43
FMET Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
FMET Martin Ratio Rank: 26

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 63
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 64
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

FMET vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	FMET	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.56	2.29	-0.73
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.16	3.01	-0.84
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.39	-0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.39	2.88	-1.49
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.70	11.20	-7.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FMET vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMET Sharpe Ratio is 1.56, which is lower than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMET 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

	FMET	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.56	2.29	-0.73
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.64	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.56	0.84	-0.28

Drawdowns

FMET vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMET drawdown since its inception was -29.22%, smaller than the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMET and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMET	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.22%	-43.56%	+14.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.00%	-15.17%	-7.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.02%	-27.89%	+2.87%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-43.56%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.48%	-11.50%	+4.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.63%	3.89%	+4.74%

Volatility

FMET vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Metaverse ETF (FMET) has a higher volatility of 5.87% compared to Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) at 4.59%. This indicates that FMET'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

	FMET	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.87%	4.59%	+1.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.67%	13.84%	+0.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.48%	18.53%	+0.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.20%	25.80%	-1.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.20%	25.73%	-1.53%

FMET vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FMET vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

FMET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.50%, 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%
FMET Fidelity Metaverse ETF	0.50%	0.81%	0.44%	0.40%	0.18%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FMET and FBCG in my portfolio?

FMET and FBCG have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FMET or FBCG?

FMET has higher volatility (5.87%) compared to FBCG (4.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMET dropped -29.22% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, FMET or FBCG?

On 3-year performance, FBCG leads with 31.06% vs 17.27% for FMET. On fees, FMET is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FBCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMET or FBCG?

Over the 3-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 31.06% return vs 17.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMET or FBCG?

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

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

FMET has the higher dividend yield at 0.50%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FMET and FBCG?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.56), 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.