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 MOAT: how they differ

FBCG and MOAT hold 11% of their weight in the same names, and FBCG returned more over the year.

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and MOAT hold 11% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and MOAT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGMOAT
NVIDIA CORP14.62%2.45%
BROADCOM INC3.74%2.43%
MICROSOFT CORP5.20%2.20%
AMAZON.COM INC8.43%1.33%
META PLATFORMS INC3.90%1.17%
AMPHENOL CORPORATION NEW0.38%1.50%
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC0.33%1.42%
NIKE INC0.17%2.02%
PEPSICO INC0.09%1.17%
DANAHER CORP0.00%2.41%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in MOAT
APPLE INC 9.64%Masco Corp 2.96%
ALPHABET INC 9.10%Kenvue Inc 2.59%
ELI LILLY and CO 2.25%Airbnb Inc 2.56%
NETFLIX INC 2.23%Palo Alto Networks Inc 2.51%
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY INC 2.03%Brown-Forman Corp 2.49%
TESLA INC 1.45%Charles Schwab Corp/The 2.45%
APPLOVIN CORP 1.26%Datadog Inc 2.44%
WESTERN DIGITAL CORP 1.19%Bristol-Myers Squibb Co 2.43%

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 MOAT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityVanEck
What it isBlue Chip GrowthMorningstar Wide Moat
Total return, 1 year+17.3%+11.3%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts−6.2 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.46%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%91.6%
Holdings21455

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.

MOAT in plain words

MOAT is an index equity fund tracking the Morningstar Wide Moat. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +11.3% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.46% 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 55 positions, with the top ten at 25.3%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Aug 27, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or MOAT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and MOAT returned +11.3%, so FBCG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or MOAT?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and MOAT charges 0.46%, so MOAT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and MOAT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 92% of MOAT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 11% 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 MOAT, 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 MOAT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-MOAT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources