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 QQQM: how they differ

FBCG and QQQM hold 47% of their weight in the same names, and QQQM returned more over the year.

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and QQQM hold 47% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and QQQM both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGQQQM
NVIDIA CORP14.62%8.16%
APPLE INC9.64%7.29%
MICROSOFT CORP5.20%5.32%
AMAZON.COM INC8.43%4.62%
ALPHABET INC9.10%3.52%
BROADCOM INC3.74%3.37%
META PLATFORMS INC3.90%2.97%
NETFLIX INC2.23%1.59%
TESLA INC1.45%3.46%
APPLOVIN CORP1.26%0.83%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC0.82%4.80%
SANDISK CORP/DE0.82%1.10%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in QQQM
ELI LILLY and CO 2.25%Alphabet Inc. 3.26%
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG CO LTD 1.12%Intel Corp. 2.52%
CELESTICA INC 0.88%Walmart Inc. 2.48%
GE VERNOVA INC 0.82%Cisco Systems, Inc. 2.09%
MASTERCARD INC 0.81%Applied Materials, Inc. 1.57%
SHARKNINJA INC 0.67%Texas Instruments Inc. 1.22%
BOEING CO 0.63%QUALCOMM Inc. 1.18%
WELLTOWER INC 0.58%Linde PLC 1.01%

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 May 31, 2026.

FBCG and QQQM on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
QQQM
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityInvesco
What it isBlue Chip GrowthNasdaq-100
Total return, 1 year+17.3%+23.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts+5.5 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%96.7%
Holdings214101

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.

QQQM in plain words

QQQM is an index equity fund tracking the Nasdaq-100. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +23.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.15% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 97% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 101 positions, with the top ten at 47.5%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Jun 2, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or QQQM?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and QQQM returned +23.0%, so QQQM returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or QQQM?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and QQQM charges 0.15%, so QQQM is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and QQQM overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 97% of QQQM by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 47% 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 QQQM, 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 QQQM, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-QQQM Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources