Get the weekly note

Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.

ETFIQetfiq.com · independent ETF data

DYNF vs FBCG: how they differ

DYNF and FBCG hold 47% of their weight in the same names, and DYNF returned more over the year.

iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF and Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, DYNF and FBCG hold 47% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions DYNF and FBCG both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingDYNFFBCG
NVIDIA Corp8.62%14.62%
Apple Inc7.75%9.64%
Microsoft Corp5.35%5.20%
Amazon.com Inc4.42%8.43%
Broadcom Inc3.25%3.74%
Alphabet Inc2.87%9.10%
Meta Platforms Inc2.50%3.90%
Tesla Inc1.74%1.45%
Netflix Inc1.17%2.23%
Eli Lilly & Co0.89%2.25%
Micron Technology Inc1.35%0.82%
GE Vernova Inc0.62%0.82%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in DYNFOnly in FBCG
JPMorgan Chase & Co 3.59%MARVELL TECHNOLOGY INC 2.03%
Cisco Systems Inc 2.76%TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG CO LTD 1.12%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc 2.38%MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS INC 1.03%
Alphabet Inc 2.10%CELESTICA INC 0.88%
Duke Energy Corp 1.63%MASTERCARD INC 0.81%
Bank of America Corp 1.59%SHARKNINJA INC 0.67%
Parker-Hannifin Corp 1.50%BOEING CO 0.63%
Hartford Insurance Group Inc/The 1.48%STARBUCKS CORP 0.61%

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Apr 30, 2026.

DYNF and FBCG on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
DYNF
iShares U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active ETF
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssueriSharesFidelity
What it isU.S. Equity Factor Rotation ActiveBlue Chip Growth
Total return, 1 year+20.8%+17.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500+3.3 pts−0.2 pts
Expense ratio0.26%0.57%
Already in the S&P 50098.8%86.8%
Holdings187214

DYNF in plain words

DYNF is an index equity fund tracking the U.S. Equity Factor Rotation Active. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +20.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.26% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 187 positions, with the top ten at 43.8%.

FBCG in plain words

FBCG is an index equity fund tracking the Blue Chip Growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.57% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 87% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 214 positions, with the top ten at 61.2%. It sat 3.7% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, DYNF or FBCG?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, DYNF returned +20.8% and FBCG returned +17.3%, so DYNF returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, DYNF or FBCG?
DYNF charges 0.26% a year and FBCG charges 0.57%, so DYNF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do DYNF and FBCG overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 99% of DYNF and 87% of FBCG by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 47% of their books are the same securities at the same weight.

Other comparisons

Where to next

Where these figures came from

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.

DYNF against FBCG, ETFIQ, data as of Sep 12, 2026. Every figure is arithmetic on a named public source; the method is at etfiq.com/methodology. A comparison is not a recommendation.

Cite this page. ETFIQ, DYNF against FBCG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/DYNF-FBCG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources