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 IXUS: how they differ

FBCG and IXUS hold 1% of their weight in the same names, and IXUS returned more over the year.

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and IXUS hold 1% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and IXUS both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGIXUS
SHOPIFY INC0.25%0.35%
SUNCOR ENERGY INC0.12%0.19%
CELESTICA INC0.88%0.11%
AGNICO EAGLE MINES LTD0.08%0.22%
CANADIAN PACIFIC KANSAS CITY LTD0.07%0.18%
FIRST QUANTUM MINERALS LTD0.08%0.04%
ARITZIA INC0.39%0.02%
IAMGOLD CORP0.09%0.02%
LEGEND BIOTECH CORP0.02%0.01%
SEA LTD0.00%0.08%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in IXUS
NVIDIA CORP 14.62%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Compa 4.04%
APPLE INC 9.64%ASML Holding N.V. 1.32%
ALPHABET INC 9.10%SK hynix Inc. 1.15%
AMAZON.COM INC 8.43%Tencent Holdings Limited 0.91%
MICROSOFT CORP 5.20%HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 0.75%
META PLATFORMS INC 3.90%ASTRAZENECA PLC 0.69%
BROADCOM INC 3.74%Alibaba Group Holding Limited 0.67%
ELI LILLY and CO 2.25%Novartis AG 0.66%

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.

FBCG and IXUS on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
IXUS
iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityiShares
What it isBlue Chip GrowthCore MSCI Total International Stock
Total return, 1 year+17.3%+22.2%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts+4.7 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.07%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%0.0%
Holdings2144185

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.

IXUS in plain words

IXUS is an index equity fund tracking the Core MSCI Total International Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +22.2% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.07% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 4185 positions, with the top ten at 12.6%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or IXUS?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and IXUS returned +22.2%, so IXUS returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or IXUS?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and IXUS charges 0.07%, so IXUS is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and IXUS overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 0% of IXUS by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 1% 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 IXUS, 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 IXUS, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-IXUS Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources