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 VT: how they differ

FBCG and VT hold 30% of their weight in the same names, and VT returned more over the year.

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and VT hold 30% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and VT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGVT
NVIDIA CORP14.62%4.22%
APPLE INC9.64%3.53%
MICROSOFT CORP5.20%2.73%
AMAZON.COM INC8.43%2.29%
ALPHABET INC9.10%2.04%
BROADCOM INC3.74%1.74%
META PLATFORMS INC3.90%1.21%
TESLA INC1.45%0.97%
ELI LILLY and CO2.25%0.68%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC0.82%0.52%
MASTERCARD INC0.81%0.36%
NETFLIX INC2.23%0.36%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in VT
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG CO LTD 1.12%Alphabet Inc 1.61%
SHARKNINJA INC 0.67%Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Lt 1.52%
FTAI AVIATION LTD 0.49%JPMorgan Chase & Co 0.72%
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC 0.38%Berkshire Hathaway Inc 0.69%
SNAP INC 0.31%Samsung Electronics Co Ltd 0.64%
NXP SEMICONDUCTORS NV 0.23%Walmart Inc 0.52%
AMER SPORTS INC 0.22%ASML Holding NV 0.51%
GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC 0.20%SK hynix Inc 0.44%

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 VT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
VT
Vanguard Total World Stock Index Fund
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityVanguard
What it isBlue Chip GrowthTotal World Stock
Total return, 1 year+17.3%+18.9%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts+1.4 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.06%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%55.2%
Holdings21410042

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.

VT in plain words

VT is an index equity fund tracking the Total World Stock. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +18.9% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.06% a year. By its holdings filed for Apr 30, 2026, 55% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 10042 positions, with the top ten at 21.9%.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or VT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and VT returned +18.9%, so VT returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or VT?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and VT charges 0.06%, so VT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and VT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 55% of VT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 30% 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 VT, 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 VT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-VT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources