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 XBI: how they differ

FBCG and XBI hold 2% of their weight in the same names, and XBI returned more over the year.

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Biotech ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and XBI hold 2% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and XBI both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGXBI
GILEAD SCIENCES INC0.69%0.97%
ABBVIE INC0.42%1.04%
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS INC0.23%0.96%
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS INC0.09%0.96%
TRAVERE THERAPEUTICS INC0.09%1.13%
MODERNA INC0.07%1.41%
PRAXIS PRECISION MEDICINES INC.0.07%1.29%
SCHOLAR ROCK HOLDING CORP0.06%1.16%
VAXCYTE INC0.03%1.19%
APOGEE THERAPEUTICS INC0.01%1.49%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in XBI
NVIDIA CORP 14.62%Twist Bioscience Corp 1.41%
APPLE INC 9.64%Oruka Therapeutics Inc 1.38%
ALPHABET INC 9.10%Kymera Therapeutics Inc 1.36%
AMAZON.COM INC 8.43%Viking Therapeutics Inc 1.31%
MICROSOFT CORP 5.20%Erasca Inc 1.27%
META PLATFORMS INC 3.90%Revolution Medicines Inc 1.21%
BROADCOM INC 3.74%Rhythm Pharmaceuticals Inc 1.20%
ELI LILLY and CO 2.25%CG oncology Inc 1.20%

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 XBI on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
XBI
State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Biotech ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityState Street
What it isBlue Chip GrowthSPDR S&P Biotech
Total return, 1 year+17.3%+64.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts+46.5 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.35%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%8.5%
Holdings214150

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.

XBI in plain words

XBI is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR S&P Biotech. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +64.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.35% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 8% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 150 positions, with the top ten at 13.3%. It sat 9.6% below its high of Feb 8, 2021 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or XBI?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and XBI returned +64.0%, so XBI returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or XBI?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and XBI charges 0.35%, so XBI is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and XBI overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 8% of XBI by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 2% 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 XBI, 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 XBI, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-XBI Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources