LSGR vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LSGR (Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LSGR returned 12.43% vs 39.38% for FBCG. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.59% expense ratio.

Performance

LSGR vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF (LSGR) 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, LSGR achieves a -0.58% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 15.59% return.

LSGR

• 1D: -1.55%
• 1M: 1.34%
• YTD: -0.58%
• 6M: 0.39%
• 1Y: 12.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

LSGR vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LSGR Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF	-0.58%	15.32%	38.52%	12.34%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	15.59%	18.60%	39.05%	13.83%

Correlation

The correlation between LSGR and FBCG is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2023	0.92

The correlation between LSGR and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

LSGR vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LSGR	FBCG
Technology	32.1%	48.3%
Communication Services	28.3%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	17.4%	17.2%
Healthcare	8.9%	6.7%
Financial Services	4.8%	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	4.5%	1.3%
Industrials	4.1%	5.7%
Basic Materials	-	0.6%
Energy	-	0.4%
Real Estate	-	0.7%
Utilities	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

LSGR vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

LSGR

LSGR Risk / Return Rank: 20
LSGR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
LSGR Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
LSGR Omega Ratio Rank: 21
LSGR Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
LSGR Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

LSGR vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF (LSGR) 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.

	LSGR	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.76	2.14	-1.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.13	2.84	-1.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.36	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.69	2.61	-1.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.20	10.14	-7.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LSGR vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LSGR Sharpe Ratio is 0.76, which is lower than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LSGR 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

	LSGR	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.76	2.14	-1.37
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.62	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	0.83	+0.25

Drawdowns

LSGR vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LSGR drawdown since its inception was -22.92%, smaller than the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LSGR and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	LSGR	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.92%	-43.56%	+20.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.13%	-15.17%	-2.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-27.89%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-43.56%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.72%	-1.05%	-2.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.89%	-11.49%	+7.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.67%	3.90%	+1.77%

Volatility

LSGR vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF (LSGR) and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) have volatilities of 4.72% and 4.79%, 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

	LSGR	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.72%	4.79%	-0.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.36%	13.89%	-1.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.39%	18.55%	-2.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.39%	25.79%	-5.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.39%	25.72%	-5.33%

LSGR vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both LSGR and FBCG have an expense ratio of 0.59%.

Dividends

LSGR vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

LSGR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FBCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%.

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%
LSGR Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF	0.00%	0.05%	0.08%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LSGR and FBCG in my portfolio?

LSGR and FBCG have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LSGR or FBCG?

FBCG has higher volatility (4.79%) compared to LSGR (4.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LSGR dropped -22.92% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, LSGR or FBCG?

On 1-year performance, FBCG leads with 39.38% vs 12.43% for LSGR. Both ETFs have the same 0.59% expense ratio. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LSGR or FBCG?

Over the 1-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 39.38% return vs 12.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LSGR or FBCG?

LSGR and FBCG have the same expense ratio: 0.59% per year.

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

FBCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.04%, compared with 0.00% for LSGR.

What is the main difference between LSGR and FBCG?

They also come from different issuers: Natixis and Fidelity.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 0.76), 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.