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 IWM: how they differ

FBCG and IWM hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and IWM returned more over the year.

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and iShares Russell 2000 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and IWM hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and IWM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGIWM
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL INC0.29%0.23%
VICTORIA'S SECRET and CO0.20%0.18%
TRAVERE THERAPEUTICS INC0.09%0.16%
CENTURY ALUMINUM COMPANY0.09%0.10%
WARBY PARKER INC0.08%0.10%
RH0.20%0.08%
URBAN OUTFITTERS0.07%0.13%
PRAXIS PRECISION MEDICINES INC.0.07%0.26%
KONTOOR BRANDS INC0.07%0.14%
TEREX CORP0.07%0.26%
DAVE INC0.07%0.12%
CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS INC0.06%0.18%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in IWM
NVIDIA CORP 14.62%Moog, Inc. 0.38%
APPLE INC 9.64%Hut 8 Corp. 0.37%
ALPHABET INC 9.10%Viasat, Inc. 0.35%
AMAZON.COM INC 8.43%BrightSpring Health Services, Inc. 0.35%
MICROSOFT CORP 5.20%Cytokinetics, Inc. 0.35%
META PLATFORMS INC 3.90%MaxLinear, Inc. 0.34%
BROADCOM INC 3.74%Argan, Inc. 0.34%
ELI LILLY and CO 2.25%UMB Financial Corp. 0.33%

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 IWM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
IWM
iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityiShares
What it isBlue Chip GrowthRussell 2000
Total return, 1 year+17.3%+21.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts+3.7 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.19%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%0.0%
Holdings2142014

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.

IWM in plain words

IWM is an index equity fund tracking the Russell 2000. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +21.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.19% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 2014 positions, with the top ten at 3.4%. It sat 5.3% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or IWM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and IWM returned +21.2%, so IWM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or IWM?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and IWM charges 0.19%, so IWM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and IWM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 0% of IWM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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 IWM, 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 IWM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-IWM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources