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 VO: how they differ

FBCG and VO hold 10% of their weight in the same names, and FBCG returned more over the year.

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and Vanguard Mid-Cap Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and VO hold 10% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and VO both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGVO
WESTERN DIGITAL CORP1.19%1.07%
LUMENTUM HOLDINGS INC0.82%0.65%
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS INC1.03%0.63%
COHERENT CORP0.45%0.75%
CARVANA CO0.51%0.43%
TARGET CORP0.42%0.57%
ASTERA LABS INC0.54%0.36%
HOWMET AEROSPACE INC0.36%1.04%
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC0.33%0.42%
DELTA AIR LINES INC0.33%0.57%
CLOUDFLARE INC0.30%0.76%
COMFORT SYSTEMS USA INC0.30%0.68%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in VO
NVIDIA CORP 14.62%Vertiv Holdings Co 1.23%
APPLE INC 9.64%Seagate Technology Holdings PLC 1.05%
ALPHABET INC 9.10%Quanta Services Inc 1.05%
AMAZON.COM INC 8.43%Datadog Inc 0.84%
MICROSOFT CORP 5.20%Valero Energy Corp 0.75%
META PLATFORMS INC 3.90%Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd 0.74%
BROADCOM INC 3.74%Marathon Petroleum Corp 0.72%
ELI LILLY and CO 2.25%TransDigm Group Inc 0.72%

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 VO on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
VO
Vanguard Mid-Cap Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityVanguard
What it isBlue Chip GrowthMid-Cap
Total return, 1 year+17.3%+12.0%
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%0.03%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%91.4%
Holdings214282

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.

VO in plain words

VO is an index equity fund tracking the Mid-Cap. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +12.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.03% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 91% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 282 positions, with the top ten at 9.6%. It sat 4.1% below its high of Aug 14, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or VO?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and VO returned +12.0%, so FBCG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or VO?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and VO charges 0.03%, so VO is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and VO overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 91% of VO by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 10% 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 VO, 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 VO, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-VO Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources