TCHP vs. FBCG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

TCHP (T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF) and FBCG (Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, TCHP returned 8.43%/yr vs 12.83%/yr for FBCG. Their 0.96 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. TCHP charges 0.57%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for FBCG.

Performance

TCHP vs. FBCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF (TCHP) 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, TCHP achieves a -2.07% return, which is significantly lower than FBCG's 9.01% return.

TCHP

• 1D: 1.50%
• 1M: -0.93%
• 6M: -0.12%
• YTD: -2.07%
• 1Y: 6.36%
• 3Y*: 19.34%
• 5Y*: 8.43%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.71%

FBCG

• 1D: 1.15%
• 1M: -2.14%
• 6M: 9.63%
• YTD: 9.01%
• 1Y: 21.78%
• 3Y*: 24.38%
• 5Y*: 12.83%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.34%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	$32.87M	$33.69M	$39.51M
TCHP T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF	$9.03M	$11.03M	$11.97M

TCHP vs. FBCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
TCHP T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF	-2.07%	18.40%	36.06%	50.10%	-37.81%	18.08%	11.58%
FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF	9.01%	18.60%	39.05%	57.98%	-39.10%	21.34%	22.55%

Correlation

The correlation between TCHP and FBCG is 0.93, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 5, 2020	0.96

The correlation between TCHP and FBCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

TCHP vs. FBCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TCHP	FBCG
Technology	51.6%	52.1%
Communication Services	17.8%	15.2%
Consumer Cyclical	11.8%	16.1%
Financial Services	6.9%	2.2%
Healthcare	5.9%	5.6%
Industrials	5.3%	5.8%
Basic Materials	0.4%	0.5%
Utilities	0.4%	0.4%
Consumer Defensive	0.0%	1.3%
Energy	-	0.3%
Real Estate	-	0.6%

Return for Risk

TCHP vs. FBCG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

TCHP

TCHP Risk / Return Rank: 15
TCHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
TCHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
TCHP Omega Ratio Rank: 15
TCHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
TCHP Martin Ratio Rank: 16

FBCG

FBCG Risk / Return Rank: 37
FBCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
FBCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
FBCG Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FBCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
FBCG Martin Ratio Rank: 40

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

TCHP vs. FBCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF (TCHP) 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.

	TCHP	FBCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.22	0.91	-0.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.43	1.36	-0.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.17	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.23	1.24	-1.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.68	4.24	-3.57

TCHP vs. FBCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TCHP Sharpe Ratio is 0.22, which is lower than the FBCG Sharpe Ratio of 0.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TCHP 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

TCHP vs. FBCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TCHP drawdown since its inception was -42.34%, roughly equal to the maximum FBCG drawdown of -43.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TCHP and FBCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TCHP	FBCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.34%	-43.56%	+1.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.50%	-15.17%	-2.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.92%	-27.89%	+4.97%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.34%	-43.56%	+1.22%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.90%	-6.68%	-1.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.33%	-11.32%	-0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.90%	4.44%	+1.46%

Volatility

TCHP vs. FBCG - Volatility Comparison

T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF (TCHP) and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) have volatilities of 6.44% and 6.38%, 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

	TCHP	FBCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.44%	6.38%	+0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.52%	16.48%	-1.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.20%	20.69%	-2.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.70%	26.08%	-2.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.18%	25.73%	-2.55%

TCHP vs. FBCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

TCHP has a 0.57% expense ratio, which is lower than FBCG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

TCHP vs. FBCG - Dividend Comparison

TCHP 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%
TCHP T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.02%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TCHP and FBCG in my portfolio?

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

TCHP has higher volatility (6.44%) compared to FBCG (6.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TCHP dropped -42.34% vs FBCG's -43.56%.

Which ETF is better, TCHP or FBCG?

On 5-year performance, FBCG leads with 12.83% vs 8.43% for TCHP. On fees, TCHP is cheaper at 0.57% per year. 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, TCHP or FBCG?

Over the 5-year period, FBCG has performed better with a 12.83% return vs 8.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TCHP or FBCG?

TCHP is cheaper with a 0.57% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FBCG.

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

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

What is the main difference between TCHP and FBCG?

They also come from different issuers: T. Rowe Price and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.57% for TCHP and 0.59% for FBCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FBCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.91 vs 0.22), 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.