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 IWD: how they differ

FBCG and IWD hold 23% of their weight in the same names, and IWD returned more over the year.

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and IWD hold 23% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and IWD both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGIWD
AMAZON.COM INC8.43%5.95%
APPLE INC9.64%5.38%
MICROSOFT CORP5.20%3.89%
META PLATFORMS INC3.90%0.63%
WELLTOWER INC0.58%0.45%
GILEAD SCIENCES INC0.69%0.44%
ABBVIE INC0.42%1.15%
LOWES COS INC0.48%0.35%
TJX COMPANIES INC0.39%0.26%
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC (THE)0.23%0.82%
JOHNSON and JOHNSON0.23%1.72%
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC0.21%0.36%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in IWD
NVIDIA CORP 14.62%BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 2.62%
ALPHABET INC 9.10%JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 2.46%
BROADCOM INC 3.74%INTEL CORPORATION 1.72%
ELI LILLY and CO 2.25%CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 1.30%
NETFLIX INC 2.23%WALMART INC. 1.28%
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY INC 2.03%BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 0.99%
TESLA INC 1.45%MERCK & CO., INC. 0.89%
APPLOVIN CORP 1.26%Philip Morris International Inc. 0.79%

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 IWD on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
IWD
iShares Russell 1000 Value ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityiShares
What it isBlue Chip GrowthRussell 1000 value
Total return, 1 year+17.3%+27.4%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts+9.9 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%90.2%
Holdings214870

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.

IWD in plain words

IWD is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 value. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +27.4% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 90% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 870 positions, with the top ten at 27.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or IWD?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and IWD returned +27.4%, so IWD returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or IWD?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and IWD charges 0.18%, so IWD is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and IWD overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 90% of IWD by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 23% 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 IWD, 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 IWD, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-IWD Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources