PVAL vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

PVAL (Putnam Focused Large Cap Value ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PVAL is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Putnam, while FBCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, PVAL returned 16.29%/yr vs 14.46%/yr for FBCG. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PVAL charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

PVAL vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Putnam Focused Large Cap Value ETF (PVAL) 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, PVAL achieves a 13.07% return, which is significantly higher than FBCG's 11.31% return.

PVAL

• 1D: 1.06%
• 1M: 3.05%
• YTD: 13.07%
• 6M: 13.55%
• 1Y: 32.98%
• 3Y*: 23.14%
• 5Y*: 16.29%
• 10Y*: —

FBCG

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 0.07%
• YTD: 11.31%
• 6M: 12.74%
• 1Y: 34.39%
• 3Y*: 28.04%
• 5Y*: 14.46%
• 10Y*: —

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

PVAL vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PVAL Putnam Focused Large Cap Value ETF	13.07%	24.13%	19.30%	18.41%	-2.61%	11.77%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	11.31%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	15.32%

Correlation

The correlation between PVAL and FBCG is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.58
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 26, 2021	0.67

The correlation between PVAL and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

PVAL vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PVAL	FBCG
Financial Services	19.1%	2.2%
Healthcare	12.6%	5.6%
Industrials	12.1%	5.6%
Technology	11.9%	48.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	17.2%
Energy	8.4%	0.4%
Consumer Defensive	8.3%	1.3%
Communication Services	5.8%	17.1%
Utilities	5.0%	0.5%
Basic Materials	4.4%	0.5%
Real Estate	2.1%	0.6%

Return for Risk

PVAL vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

PVAL

PVAL Risk / Return Rank: 90
PVAL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
PVAL Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
PVAL Omega Ratio Rank: 91
PVAL Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
PVAL Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

PVAL vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Putnam Focused Large Cap Value ETF (PVAL) 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.

	PVAL	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.89	1.66	+1.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.03	2.24	+1.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.29	+0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.45	2.12	+2.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.87	8.07	+8.80

PVAL vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PVAL Sharpe Ratio is 2.89, which is higher than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PVAL 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

PVAL vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PVAL drawdown since its inception was -16.64%, smaller than the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PVAL and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	PVAL	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.64%	-43.56%	+26.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.22%	-15.17%	+7.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.42%	-27.89%	+12.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.64%	-43.56%	+26.92%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-4.71%	+4.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.01%	-11.45%	+8.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	3.99%	-2.09%

Volatility

PVAL vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Putnam Focused Large Cap Value ETF (PVAL) is 3.68%, while Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) has a volatility of 7.21%. This indicates that PVAL 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

	PVAL	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.68%	7.21%	-3.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.57%	15.09%	-6.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.12%	19.38%	-8.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.32%	25.90%	-10.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.25%	25.77%	-10.52%

PVAL vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

PVAL has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than FBCG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

PVAL vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

PVAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.97%, more than FBCG's 0.04% yield.

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%
PVAL Putnam Focused Large Cap Value ETF	0.97%	1.00%	1.34%	1.33%	0.59%	0.47%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PVAL and FBCG in my portfolio?

PVAL and FBCG have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PVAL or FBCG?

FBCG has higher volatility (7.21%) compared to PVAL (3.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PVAL dropped -16.64% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, PVAL or FBCG?

On 5-year performance, PVAL leads with 16.29% vs 14.46% for FBCG. On fees, PVAL is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, PVAL has been the lower-risk option at 3.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PVAL or FBCG?

Over the 5-year period, PVAL has performed better with a 16.29% return vs 14.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PVAL or FBCG?

PVAL is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

PVAL has the higher dividend yield at 0.97%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between PVAL and FBCG?

PVAL is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while FBCG is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Putnam and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for PVAL and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PVAL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.89 vs 1.66), 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.