Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
FBCG vs RSP: how they differ
FBCG and RSP hold 15% of their weight in the same names, and FBCG returned more over the year.
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and RSP hold 15% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.
| Holding | FBCG | RSP |
|---|---|---|
| SANDISK CORP/DE | 0.82% | 0.32% |
| WESTERN DIGITAL CORP | 1.19% | 0.31% |
| MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS INC | 1.03% | 0.29% |
| LUMENTUM HOLDINGS INC | 0.82% | 0.26% |
| COMFORT SYSTEMS USA INC | 0.30% | 0.25% |
| CARVANA CO | 0.51% | 0.25% |
| GE VERNOVA INC | 0.82% | 0.25% |
| COHERENT CORP | 0.45% | 0.24% |
| AMAZON.COM INC | 8.43% | 0.24% |
| MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC | 0.82% | 0.24% |
| BROADCOM INC | 3.74% | 0.24% |
| CORNING INC | 0.23% | 0.24% |
| Only in FBCG | Only in RSP |
|---|---|
| MARVELL TECHNOLOGY INC 2.03% | Intel Corp. 0.38% |
| TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG CO LTD 1.12% | Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 0.34% |
| CELESTICA INC 0.88% | ON Semiconductor Corp. 0.33% |
| SHARKNINJA INC 0.67% | Centene Corp. 0.29% |
| ASTERA LABS INC 0.54% | NXP Semiconductors N.V. 0.28% |
| FTAI AVIATION LTD 0.49% | Microchip Technology Inc. 0.27% |
| ARITZIA INC 0.39% | Texas Instruments Inc. 0.27% |
| SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC 0.38% | Humana Inc. 0.27% |
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 Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF | RSP Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | Fidelity | Invesco |
| What it is | Blue Chip Growth | S&P 500 equal weight |
| Total return, 1 year | +17.3% | +14.8% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | −0.2 pts | −2.7 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.57% | 0.20% |
| Already in the S&P 500 | 86.8% | 99.1% |
| Holdings | 214 | 503 |
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.
RSP in plain words
RSP is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500 equal weight. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +14.8% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.20% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 99% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 503 positions, with the top ten at 3.2%. It sat 3.5% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or RSP?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and RSP returned +14.8%, so FBCG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
- Which is cheaper, FBCG or RSP?
- FBCG charges 0.57% a year and RSP charges 0.20%, so RSP is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
- How much do FBCG and RSP overlap with the S&P 500?
- By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 99% of RSP by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 15% 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.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, FBCG against RSP, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-RSP Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources