FBCG vs IVV
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. FBCG delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 508 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FBCG | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.57% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $6.9B | $907.0B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.04% | 1.10% | |
| Holdings | 189 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +12.50% | +13.22% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.45% | +21.62% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +27.72% | +22.17% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.75% | +13.42% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.9% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -43.6% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 2, 2020 | May 15, 2000 |
FBCG vs IVV Performance
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) is a ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FBCG returned +22.45% while IVV returned +21.62%. Year to date, FBCG is up 12.50% versus a gain of 13.22% for IVV.
Over three years, FBCG compounded at +27.72% per year against +22.17% for IVV; over five years the annualized figures are +13.75% and +13.42% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, FBCG has the edge at +20.01% annualized vs +7.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FBCG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.9% compared with 15.1% for IVV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -43.6% for FBCG and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FBCG charges 0.57% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $57 vs $3 annually, a gap of $54 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FBCG currently yields 0.04% against 1.10% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
FBCG and IVV share 111 holdings out of 636 unique holdings combined, representing a 49.9% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FBCG or IVV?
FBCG has an expense ratio of 0.57% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $54 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FBCG or IVV?
Over the past year FBCG returned +22.45% vs +21.62% for IVV, so FBCG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FBCG annualized +20.01% vs +7.02% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FBCG or IVV?
FBCG has been the more volatile fund at 22.9% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: FBCG -43.6% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both FBCG and IVV?
FBCG and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between FBCG and IVV?
FBCG and IVV share 111 common holdings with a 49.9% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 636 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FBCG or IVV?
FBCG yields 0.04% while IVV yields 1.10%, so IVV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.