ILCG vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. ILCG is passively managed, while FBCG is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ILCG returned 13.61%/yr vs 14.46%/yr for FBCG. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. ILCG charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

ILCG vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) 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, ILCG achieves a 9.97% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 11.31% return.

ILCG

• 1D: 0.32%
• 1M: -1.30%
• YTD: 9.97%
• 6M: 11.01%
• 1Y: 22.69%
• 3Y*: 24.07%
• 5Y*: 13.61%
• 10Y*: 17.85%

FBCG

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: -0.54%
• YTD: 11.31%
• 6M: 12.74%
• 1Y: 32.07%
• 3Y*: 28.04%
• 5Y*: 14.46%
• 10Y*: —

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

ILCG vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	9.97%	16.71%	32.82%	40.41%	-31.75%	24.33%	24.88%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	11.31%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	41.44%

Correlation

The correlation between ILCG and FBCG is 0.96 - 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	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020	0.97

The correlation between ILCG and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

ILCG vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ILCG	FBCG
Technology	49.8%	48.3%
Communication Services	14.5%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	17.2%
Industrials	8.3%	5.7%
Financial Services	6.0%	2.2%
Healthcare	5.3%	6.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	1.3%
Real Estate	1.4%	0.7%
Basic Materials	1.1%	0.6%
Utilities	0.8%	0.5%
Energy	0.5%	0.4%

Return for Risk

ILCG vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 39
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 41
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 37

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 53
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 53
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

ILCG vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ILCG	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	1.66	-0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.81	2.24	-0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.29	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.46	2.12	-0.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.04	8.07	-3.03

ILCG vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ILCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is comparable to the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ILCG 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.

Drawdowns

ILCG vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ILCG drawdown since its inception was -52.98%, which is greater than FBCG's maximum drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILCG and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	ILCG	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.98%	-43.56%	-9.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.65%	-15.17%	-0.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.10%	-27.89%	+4.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.38%	-43.56%	+8.18%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.38%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.92%	-4.71%	-0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.21%	-11.45%	+3.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.51%	3.99%	+0.52%

Volatility

ILCG vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) is 6.77%, while Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a volatility of 7.21%. This indicates that ILCG 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

	ILCG	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.77%	7.21%	-0.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.98%	15.09%	-1.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.16%	19.38%	-2.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.12%	25.90%	-3.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.59%	25.77%	-4.18%

ILCG vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ILCG has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than FBCG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

ILCG vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

ILCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, 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%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.42%	0.47%	0.50%	0.69%	0.75%	0.34%	0.28%	0.54%	0.81%	0.89%	0.95%	0.99%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ILCG and FBCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, ILCG and FBCG 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, ILCG or FBCG?

FBCG has higher volatility (7.21%) compared to ILCG (6.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILCG dropped -52.98% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, ILCG or FBCG?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 14.46% vs 13.61% for ILCG. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ILCG has been the lower-risk option at 6.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ILCG or FBCG?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 14.46% return vs 13.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ILCG or FBCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between ILCG and FBCG?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.04% for ILCG and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 vs 1.33), 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.