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 USMV: how they differ

FBCG and USMV hold 14% of their weight in the same names, and FBCG returned more over the year.

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and USMV hold 14% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and USMV both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGUSMV
NVIDIA CORP14.62%1.64%
MICROSOFT CORP5.20%1.56%
APPLE INC9.64%0.82%
MASTERCARD INC0.81%1.15%
GILEAD SCIENCES INC0.69%0.82%
ELI LILLY and CO2.25%0.66%
WELLTOWER INC0.58%0.80%
BROADCOM INC3.74%0.50%
ABBVIE INC0.42%0.63%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC0.82%0.42%
TJX COMPANIES INC0.39%1.15%
AMPHENOL CORPORATION NEW0.38%1.51%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in USMV
ALPHABET INC 9.10%CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 1.81%
TESLA INC 1.45%DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 1.55%
WESTERN DIGITAL CORP 1.19%THE SOUTHERN COMPANY 1.53%
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG CO LTD 1.12%Chubb Limited 1.50%
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS INC 1.03%VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. 1.49%
CELESTICA INC 0.88%WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. 1.48%
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS INC 0.82%MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. 1.46%
SANDISK CORP/DE 0.82%BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. 1.42%

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 USMV on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
USMV
iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityiShares
What it isBlue Chip GrowthMSCI USA Min Vol Factor
Total return, 1 year+17.3%+6.6%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts−10.9 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.15%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%94.8%
Holdings214170

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.

USMV in plain words

USMV is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI USA Min Vol Factor. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +6.6% 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 Apr 30, 2026, 95% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 170 positions, with the top ten at 15.7%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or USMV?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and USMV returned +6.6%, so FBCG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or USMV?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and USMV charges 0.15%, so USMV is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and USMV overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 95% of USMV by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 14% 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 USMV, 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 USMV, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-USMV Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources