FBCG vs VTI
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. FBCG delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 3,543 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FBCG | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.57% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $6.9B | $666.9B | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.04% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 189 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +12.50% | +13.67% | |
| 1Y Return | +22.45% | +22.17% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +27.72% | +21.93% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.75% | +12.51% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.9% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -43.6% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 2, 2020 | May 24, 2001 |
FBCG vs VTI Performance
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF (FBCG) is a ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year FBCG returned +22.45% while VTI returned +22.17%. Year to date, FBCG is up 12.50% versus a gain of 13.67% for VTI.
Over three years, FBCG compounded at +27.72% per year against +21.93% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +13.75% and +12.51% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, FBCG has the edge at +20.01% annualized vs +8.11%. 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 15.3% for VTI. 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 -56.6% for VTI. 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 0.92. 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 VTI 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 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
FBCG and VTI share 188 holdings out of 2841 unique holdings combined, representing a 47.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FBCG or VTI?
FBCG has an expense ratio of 0.57% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $54 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FBCG or VTI?
Over the past year FBCG returned +22.45% vs +22.17% for VTI, so FBCG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FBCG annualized +20.01% vs +8.11% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FBCG or VTI?
FBCG has been the more volatile fund at 22.9% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: FBCG -43.6% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both FBCG and VTI?
FBCG and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, 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 VTI?
FBCG and VTI share 188 common holdings with a 47.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 2841 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FBCG or VTI?
FBCG yields 0.04% while VTI yields 1.07%, so VTI 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.