FSBDX vs. FAOFX

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FSBDX (Fidelity Series Blue Chip Growth Fund) and FAOFX (Fidelity Advisor Series Growth Opportunities Fund) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds from Fidelity. Over the past 10 years, FSBDX returned 22.67%/yr vs 23.17%/yr for FAOFX. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. Both charge a 0.00% expense ratio.

Performance

FSBDX vs. FAOFX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Series Blue Chip Growth Fund (FSBDX) and Fidelity Advisor Series Growth Opportunities Fund (FAOFX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FSBDX achieves a 18.41% return, which is significantly higher than FAOFX's 17.42% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with FSBDX having a 22.67% annualized return and FAOFX not far ahead at 23.17%.

FSBDX

• 1D: 0.93%
• 1M: 8.71%
• YTD: 18.41%
• 6M: 19.62%
• 1Y: 46.21%
• 3Y*: 32.92%
• 5Y*: 17.44%
• 10Y*: 22.67%

FAOFX

• 1D: 0.73%
• 1M: 9.04%
• YTD: 17.42%
• 6M: 18.73%
• 1Y: 42.08%
• 3Y*: 32.66%
• 5Y*: 14.40%
• 10Y*: 23.17%

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

FSBDX vs. FAOFX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FSBDX Fidelity Series Blue Chip Growth Fund	18.41%	20.31%	39.76%	57.42%	-37.20%	22.53%	62.77%	33.24%	4.53%	35.27%
FAOFX Fidelity Advisor Series Growth Opportunities Fund	17.42%	22.32%	39.90%	46.96%	-37.34%	13.29%	68.46%	40.79%	16.47%	35.62%

Correlation

The correlation between FSBDX and FAOFX 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	0.98
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.98
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 20, 2013	0.98

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

Return for Risk

FSBDX vs. FAOFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FSBDX

FSBDX Risk / Return Rank: 78
FSBDX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
FSBDX Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
FSBDX Omega Ratio Rank: 68
FSBDX Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
FSBDX Martin Ratio Rank: 84

FAOFX

FAOFX Risk / Return Rank: 56
FAOFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
FAOFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
FAOFX Omega Ratio Rank: 55
FAOFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
FAOFX Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

FSBDX vs. FAOFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Series Blue Chip Growth Fund (FSBDX) and Fidelity Advisor Series Growth Opportunities Fund (FAOFX). 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.

	FSBDX	FAOFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	2.40	+0.34
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.50	3.07	+0.43
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.41	+0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.78	2.82	+0.96
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.94	10.51	+5.44
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FSBDX vs. FAOFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FSBDX Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is comparable to the FAOFX Sharpe Ratio of 2.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FSBDX and FAOFX, 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

	FSBDX	FAOFX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74	2.40	+0.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71	0.58	+0.13
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.97	0.97	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.90	0.88	+0.02

Drawdowns

FSBDX vs. FAOFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FSBDX drawdown since its inception was -42.25%, roughly equal to the maximum FAOFX drawdown of -43.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FSBDX and FAOFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FSBDX	FAOFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.25%	-43.59%	+1.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.41%	-15.48%	+3.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.09%	-26.60%	-0.49%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.25%	-43.59%	+1.34%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.25%	-43.59%	+1.34%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.24%	-8.11%	+0.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.94%	4.15%	-1.21%

Volatility

FSBDX vs. FAOFX - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Series Blue Chip Growth Fund (FSBDX) and Fidelity Advisor Series Growth Opportunities Fund (FAOFX) have volatilities of 4.21% and 4.31%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FSBDX	FAOFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.21%	4.31%	-0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.98%	14.15%	-1.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.45%	18.25%	-0.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.78%	25.02%	-0.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.51%	23.90%	-0.39%

FSBDX vs. FAOFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FSBDX has a 0.00% expense ratio, which is lower than FAOFX's 0.00% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FSBDX vs. FAOFX - Dividend Comparison

FSBDX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.15%, less than FAOFX's 13.19% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FAOFX Fidelity Advisor Series Growth Opportunities Fund	13.19%	15.49%	8.75%	0.33%	0.54%	30.66%	32.61%	28.66%	24.08%	10.40%	4.35%	11.85%
FSBDX Fidelity Series Blue Chip Growth Fund	3.15%	3.73%	8.92%	0.54%	3.93%	24.67%	40.16%	11.36%	15.87%	10.80%	1.41%	13.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FSBDX and FAOFX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, FSBDX and FAOFX 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, FSBDX or FAOFX?

FAOFX has higher volatility (4.31%) compared to FSBDX (4.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FSBDX dropped -42.25% vs FAOFX's -43.59%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FSBDX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 2.40), 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.