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 IWF: how they differ

FBCG and IWF hold 57% of their weight in the same names, and FBCG returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and IWF hold 57% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and IWF both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGIWF
NVIDIA CORP14.62%13.85%
APPLE INC9.64%6.72%
ALPHABET INC9.10%6.18%
MICROSOFT CORP5.20%4.11%
BROADCOM INC3.74%5.21%
META PLATFORMS INC3.90%3.01%
ELI LILLY and CO2.25%2.84%
TESLA INC1.45%3.65%
NETFLIX INC2.23%0.89%
GE VERNOVA INC0.82%0.94%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC0.82%3.86%
SANDISK CORP/DE0.82%0.98%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in IWF
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG CO LTD 1.12%ALPHABET INC. 4.98%
CELESTICA INC 0.88%APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 1.70%
GILEAD SCIENCES INC 0.69%PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. 0.82%
SHARKNINJA INC 0.67%TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED 0.80%
WELLTOWER INC 0.58%INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC. 0.42%
FTAI AVIATION LTD 0.49%AMGEN INC. 0.41%
LOWES COS INC 0.48%BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. 0.41%
TARGET CORP 0.42%VERTIV HOLDINGS CO 0.38%

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 IWF on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
IWF
iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityiShares
What it isBlue Chip GrowthRussell 1000 growth
Total return, 1 year+17.3%+7.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts−10.5 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.18%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%93.6%
Holdings214368

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.

IWF in plain words

IWF is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +7.0% 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, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 368 positions, with the top ten at 54.4%. It sat 5.0% below its high of Jun 1, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or IWF?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and IWF returned +7.0%, so FBCG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or IWF?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and IWF charges 0.18%, so IWF is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 94% of IWF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 57% 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 IWF, 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 IWF, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-IWF Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources