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 XOVR: how they differ

FBCG and XOVR hold 26% of their weight in the same names, and FBCG returned more over the year.

Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF.

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and XOVR hold 26% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and XOVR both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGXOVR
NVIDIA CORP14.62%9.48%
ALPHABET INC9.10%6.53%
META PLATFORMS INC3.90%4.47%
TESLA INC1.45%1.63%
APPLOVIN CORP1.26%3.95%
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS INC1.03%1.77%
ASTERA LABS INC0.54%7.75%
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC0.37%0.56%
DOORDASH INC0.27%2.04%
AFFIRM HOLDINGS INC0.24%2.64%
ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC0.19%3.56%
AXON ENTERPRISE INC0.12%2.60%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in XOVR
APPLE INC 9.64%Natera Inc 3.70%
AMAZON.COM INC 8.43%Veeva Systems Inc 3.17%
MICROSOFT CORP 5.20%Rocket Lab Corp 2.50%
BROADCOM INC 3.74%Roku Inc 2.16%
ELI LILLY and CO 2.25%Tempus Ai Inc 2.06%
NETFLIX INC 2.23%Exelixis Inc 1.89%
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY INC 2.03%Virtu Financial Inc 1.86%
WESTERN DIGITAL CORP 1.19%Toast Inc 1.71%

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 XOVR on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
XOVR
ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityERShares
What it isBlue Chip GrowthPrivate-Public Crossover
Total return, 1 year+17.3%0.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts−17.5 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.75%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%43.4%
Holdings21432

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.

XOVR in plain words

XOVR is an index equity fund tracking the Private-Public Crossover. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned 0.0% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Jun 30, 2026, 43% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 32 positions, with the top ten at 63.1%. It sat 4.2% below its high of Oct 27, 2025 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or XOVR?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and XOVR returned 0.0%, so FBCG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or XOVR?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and XOVR charges 0.75%, so FBCG is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and XOVR overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 43% of XOVR by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 26% 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 XOVR, 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 XOVR, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-XOVR Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources