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

FBCG vs IWB: how they differ

FBCG and IWB hold 45% of their weight in the same names, and FBCG returned more over the year.

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and iShares Russell 1000 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and IWB hold 45% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and IWB both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGIWB
NVIDIA CORP14.62%6.73%
APPLE INC9.64%6.03%
MICROSOFT CORP5.20%4.00%
AMAZON.COM INC8.43%3.33%
ALPHABET INC9.10%3.00%
BROADCOM INC3.74%2.54%
META PLATFORMS INC3.90%1.79%
TESLA INC1.45%1.77%
ELI LILLY and CO2.25%1.38%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC0.82%1.88%
MASTERCARD INC0.81%0.60%
SANDISK CORP/DE0.82%0.48%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in IWB
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG CO LTD 1.12%ALPHABET INC. 2.42%
CELESTICA INC 0.88%BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 1.34%
SHARKNINJA INC 0.67%JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 1.26%
FTAI AVIATION LTD 0.49%INTEL CORPORATION 0.88%
ARITZIA INC 0.39%APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 0.83%
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC 0.38%WALMART INC. 0.72%
SNAP INC 0.31%CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 0.67%
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC 0.29%BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 0.54%

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 and Jun 30, 2026.

FBCG and IWB on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
IWB
iShares Russell 1000 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityiShares
What it isBlue Chip GrowthRussell 1000
Total return, 1 year+17.3%+16.7%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts−0.8 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%91.9%
Holdings2141024

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.

IWB in plain words

IWB is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +16.7% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 92% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 1024 positions, with the top ten at 33.5%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or IWB?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and IWB returned +16.7%, so FBCG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or IWB?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and IWB charges 0.15%, so IWB is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and IWB overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 92% of IWB by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 45% 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.

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

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources