QQH vs. FBCG

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

QQH (HCM Defender 100 Index ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQH is a Technology Equities fund tracking the HCM Defender 100 Index, while FBCG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity. QQH is passively managed, while FBCG is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, QQH returned 13.32%/yr vs 14.46%/yr for FBCG. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QQH charges 1.14%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

QQH vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH) 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, QQH achieves a 8.65% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 11.31% return.

QQH

• 1D: 0.72%
• 1M: -0.74%
• YTD: 8.65%
• 6M: 8.98%
• 1Y: 30.75%
• 3Y*: 22.44%
• 5Y*: 13.32%
• 10Y*: —

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)

QQH vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
QQH HCM Defender 100 Index ETF	8.65%	15.66%	33.64%	48.05%	-39.60%	37.52%	43.09%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	11.31%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	41.44%

Correlation

The correlation between QQH and FBCG is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020	0.91

The correlation between QQH and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQH vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQH	FBCG
Technology	56.6%	48.3%
Communication Services	14.9%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	13.6%	17.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	1.3%
Healthcare	3.5%	6.7%
Industrials	2.2%	5.7%
Utilities	1.2%	0.5%
Basic Materials	1.0%	0.6%
Energy	0.5%	0.4%
Financial Services	0.2%	2.2%
Real Estate	0.0%	0.7%

Return for Risk

QQH vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQH

QQH Risk / Return Rank: 42
QQH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
QQH Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
QQH Omega Ratio Rank: 43
QQH Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
QQH 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.

QQH vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH) 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.

	QQH	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.39	1.66	-0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.84	2.24	-0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.29	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.91	2.12	-0.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.10	8.07	-2.97

QQH vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQH Sharpe Ratio is 1.39, which is comparable to the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQH 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

QQH vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQH drawdown since its inception was -41.87%, roughly equal to the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQH and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQH	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.87%	-43.56%	+1.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.18%	-15.17%	-1.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.84%	-27.89%	+3.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.87%	-43.56%	+1.69%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.87%	-4.71%	-1.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.90%	-11.45%	-1.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.04%	3.99%	+2.05%

Volatility

QQH vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

HCM Defender 100 Index ETF (QQH) has a higher volatility of 9.85% compared to Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) at 7.21%. This indicates that QQH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FBCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQH	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.85%	7.21%	+2.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.84%	15.09%	+1.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.17%	19.38%	+2.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.81%	25.90%	-4.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.89%	25.77%	-0.88%

QQH vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQH has a 1.14% expense ratio, which is higher than FBCG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQH vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

QQH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.19%, more than FBCG's 0.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	0.04%	0.05%	0.12%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%
QQH HCM Defender 100 Index ETF	0.19%	0.21%	0.24%	0.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQH and FBCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, QQH 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, QQH or FBCG?

QQH has higher volatility (9.85%) compared to FBCG (7.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQH dropped -41.87% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, QQH or FBCG?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 14.46% vs 13.32% for QQH. On fees, FBCG is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, FBCG has been the lower-risk option at 7.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQH or FBCG?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 14.46% return vs 13.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQH or FBCG?

FBCG is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 1.14% for QQH.

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

QQH has the higher dividend yield at 0.19%, compared with 0.04% for FBCG.

What is the main difference between QQH and FBCG?

QQH is categorized as Technology Equities, while FBCG is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Howard Capital Management and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 1.14% for QQH and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 vs 1.39), 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.