FRNW vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FRNW (Fidelity Clean Energy ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FRNW is a Alternative Energy 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, FRNW returned 10.12%/yr vs 30.60%/yr for FBCG. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FRNW charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

FRNW vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) 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, FRNW achieves a 34.11% return, which is significantly higher than FBCG's 15.59% return.

FRNW

• 1D: -1.91%
• 1M: 7.89%
• YTD: 34.11%
• 6M: 34.18%
• 1Y: 86.03%
• 3Y*: 10.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FBCG

• 1D: -1.05%
• 1M: 7.84%
• YTD: 15.59%
• 6M: 15.51%
• 1Y: 39.38%
• 3Y*: 30.60%
• 5Y*: 15.84%
• 10Y*: —

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

FRNW vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	34.11%	53.20%	-21.11%	-19.64%	-11.46%	-2.85%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	15.59%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	4.53%

Correlation

The correlation between FRNW and FBCG is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2021	0.60

The correlation between FRNW and FBCG shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (3 years) to 0.62 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FRNW vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FRNW	FBCG
Utilities	43.3%	0.5%
Industrials	30.1%	5.7%
Energy	21.0%	0.4%
Technology	5.5%	48.3%
Basic Materials	-	0.6%
Communication Services	-	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	17.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.3%
Financial Services	-	2.2%
Healthcare	-	6.7%
Real Estate	-	0.7%

Return for Risk

FRNW vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FRNW

FRNW Risk / Return Rank: 90
FRNW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
FRNW Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FRNW Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FRNW Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
FRNW Martin Ratio Rank: 92

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 57
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 58
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
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.

FRNW vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) 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.

	FRNW	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.39	2.14	+1.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.06	2.84	+1.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.36	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.47	2.61	+4.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	23.29	10.14	+13.15
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FRNW vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FRNW Sharpe Ratio is 3.39, which is higher than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FRNW 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

	FRNW	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.39	2.14	+1.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.62	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.09	0.83	-0.74

Drawdowns

FRNW vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FRNW drawdown since its inception was -59.37%, which is greater than FBCG's maximum drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FRNW and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FRNW	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.37%	-43.56%	-15.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.58%	-15.17%	+3.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.27%	-27.89%	-17.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-43.56%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.15%	-1.05%	-2.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.33%	-11.49%	-21.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.71%	3.90%	-0.19%

Volatility

FRNW vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Clean Energy ETF (FRNW) has a higher volatility of 8.16% compared to Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) at 4.79%. This indicates that FRNW'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

	FRNW	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.16%	4.79%	+3.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.79%	13.89%	+3.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.61%	18.55%	+7.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.35%	25.79%	+2.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.35%	25.72%	+2.63%

FRNW vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FRNW vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

FRNW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%, 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%
FRNW Fidelity Clean Energy ETF	0.94%	1.25%	1.43%	1.30%	0.69%	0.04%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FRNW and FBCG in my portfolio?

FRNW and FBCG have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FRNW or FBCG?

FRNW has higher volatility (8.16%) compared to FBCG (4.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FRNW dropped -59.37% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, FRNW or FBCG?

On 3-year performance, FBCG leads with 30.60% vs 10.12% for FRNW. On fees, FRNW is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, FBCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FRNW or FBCG?

Over the 3-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 30.60% return vs 10.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FRNW or FBCG?

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

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

FRNW has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between FRNW and FBCG?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRNW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.39 vs 2.14), 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.