IWP vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

IWP (iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWP is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Midcap Growth Index, while FBCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. IWP is passively managed, while FBCG is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWP returned 5.99%/yr vs 14.88%/yr for FBCG. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWP charges 0.23%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

IWP vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) 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, IWP achieves a 1.66% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 11.60% return.

IWP

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 1.28%
• YTD: 1.66%
• 6M: 0.18%
• 1Y: 2.82%
• 3Y*: 15.01%
• 5Y*: 5.99%
• 10Y*: 12.22%

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)

IWP vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	1.66%	8.45%	21.86%	25.70%	-26.90%	12.60%	30.56%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	11.60%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	42.99%

Correlation

The correlation between IWP and FBCG is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2020	0.87

The correlation between IWP and FBCG shifts across timeframes, from 0.73 (1 year) to 0.87 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IWP vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWP	FBCG
Industrials	24.2%	5.7%
Consumer Cyclical	21.1%	17.2%
Technology	20.0%	48.3%
Healthcare	13.5%	6.7%
Financial Services	6.9%	2.2%
Communication Services	4.2%	16.6%
Energy	3.8%	0.4%
Utilities	2.9%	0.5%
Consumer Defensive	1.5%	1.3%
Real Estate	1.4%	0.7%
Basic Materials	0.4%	0.6%

Return for Risk

IWP vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWP

IWP Risk / Return Rank: 12
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 11
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

IWP vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) 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.

	IWP	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.17	1.75	-1.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.36	2.33	-1.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.31	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.19	2.19	-2.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.56	8.45	-7.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWP vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWP Sharpe Ratio is 0.17, which is lower than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWP 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

	IWP	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.17	1.75	-1.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.27	0.58	-0.31
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.57	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.42	0.80	-0.38

Drawdowns

IWP vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWP drawdown since its inception was -56.92%, which is greater than FBCG's maximum drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWP and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWP	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.92%	-43.56%	-13.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.79%	-15.17%	+0.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.20%	-27.89%	+2.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.62%	-43.56%	+4.94%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.62%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.08%	-4.46%	+0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.68%	-11.47%	+1.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.08%	3.92%	+1.16%

Volatility

IWP vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) is 4.62%, while Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a volatility of 6.44%. This indicates that IWP 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

	IWP	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.62%	6.44%	-1.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.93%	14.61%	-1.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.71%	19.05%	-2.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.34%	25.86%	-3.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.70%	25.76%	-4.06%

IWP vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWP has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is lower than FBCG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWP vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

IWP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, 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%
IWP iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.33%	0.37%	0.40%	0.54%	0.77%	0.30%	0.38%	0.59%	1.02%	0.78%	1.16%	0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWP and FBCG in my portfolio?

IWP and FBCG have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWP or FBCG?

FBCG has higher volatility (6.44%) compared to IWP (4.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWP dropped -56.92% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, IWP or FBCG?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 14.88% vs 5.99% for IWP. On fees, IWP is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, IWP has been the lower-risk option at 4.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWP or FBCG?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 14.88% return vs 5.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWP or FBCG?

IWP is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

IWP has the higher dividend yield at 0.33%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between IWP and FBCG?

IWP is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while FBCG is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for IWP and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs 0.17), 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.