IEFA vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

IEFA (iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IEFA is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE IMI Index (Net), while FBCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. IEFA is passively managed, while FBCG is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, IEFA returned 7.82%/yr vs 14.88%/yr for FBCG. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IEFA charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

IEFA vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) 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, IEFA achieves a 7.49% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 11.60% return.

IEFA

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: -1.17%
• YTD: 7.49%
• 6M: 10.04%
• 1Y: 19.61%
• 3Y*: 16.13%
• 5Y*: 7.82%
• 10Y*: 9.37%

FBCG

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 0.82%
• YTD: 11.60%
• 6M: 10.83%
• 1Y: 33.02%
• 3Y*: 29.20%
• 5Y*: 14.88%
• 10Y*: —

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

IEFA vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IEFA iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF	7.49%	32.08%	3.26%	17.95%	-15.24%	11.63%	19.72%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	11.60%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	42.99%

Correlation

The correlation between IEFA and FBCG is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2020	0.66

The correlation between IEFA and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

IEFA vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IEFA	FBCG
Financial Services	22.5%	2.2%
Industrials	20.1%	5.7%
Technology	10.8%	48.3%
Healthcare	9.5%	6.7%
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	17.2%
Basic Materials	7.0%	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.6%	1.3%
Communication Services	4.4%	16.6%
Energy	3.8%	0.4%
Utilities	3.6%	0.5%
Real Estate	3.0%	0.7%

Return for Risk

IEFA vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IEFA

IEFA Risk / Return Rank: 40
IEFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
IEFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
IEFA Omega Ratio Rank: 40
IEFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
IEFA Martin Ratio Rank: 43

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 53
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 54

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.

IEFA vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) 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.

	IEFA	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.30	1.75	-0.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.88	2.33	-0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.31	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.71	2.19	-0.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.52	8.45	-1.93
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IEFA vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IEFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is comparable to the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IEFA 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

	IEFA	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.30	1.75	-0.45
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.47	0.58	-0.10
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.54	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.50	0.80	-0.30

Drawdowns

IEFA vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IEFA drawdown since its inception was -34.78%, smaller than the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEFA and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IEFA	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.78%	-43.56%	+8.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.50%	-15.17%	+3.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.76%	-27.89%	+14.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.41%	-43.56%	+13.15%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.44%	-4.46%	+2.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.69%	-11.47%	+4.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.02%	3.92%	-0.90%

Volatility

IEFA vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF (IEFA) is 4.54%, while Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a volatility of 6.44%. This indicates that IEFA 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

	IEFA	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.54%	6.44%	-1.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.74%	14.61%	-1.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.22%	19.05%	-3.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.55%	25.86%	-9.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.32%	25.76%	-8.44%

IEFA vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IEFA has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than FBCG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

IEFA vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

IEFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.30%, more than FBCG's 0.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	0.04%	0.05%	0.12%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IEFA iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF	3.30%	3.55%	3.47%	3.20%	2.70%	3.32%	1.90%	3.18%	3.46%	2.57%	2.96%	2.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IEFA and FBCG in my portfolio?

IEFA and FBCG have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IEFA or FBCG?

FBCG has higher volatility (6.44%) compared to IEFA (4.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IEFA dropped -34.78% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, IEFA or FBCG?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 14.88% vs 7.82% for IEFA. On fees, IEFA is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IEFA has been the lower-risk option at 4.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IEFA or FBCG?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 14.88% return vs 7.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IEFA or FBCG?

IEFA is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

IEFA has the higher dividend yield at 3.30%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between IEFA and FBCG?

IEFA is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while FBCG is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IEFA and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs 1.30), 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.