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 XRT: how they differ

FBCG and XRT hold 4% of their weight in the same names, and FBCG returned more over the year.

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

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and XRT hold 4% of their money in the same securities at the same weight.

Positions FBCG and XRT both hold, largest shared weight first
HoldingFBCGXRT
AMAZON.COM INC8.43%1.35%
CARVANA CO0.51%1.32%
TARGET CORP0.42%1.38%
TJX COMPANIES INC0.39%1.22%
VICTORIA'S SECRET and CO0.20%1.52%
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP0.13%1.29%
AUTOZONE INC0.10%1.39%
FIVE BELOW INC0.10%1.24%
SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET INC0.09%1.32%
WARBY PARKER INC0.08%1.64%
BJS WHOLESALE CLUB HOLDINGS INC0.08%1.27%
URBAN OUTFITTERS0.07%1.32%
Largest positions each one holds and the other does not
Only in FBCGOnly in XRT
NVIDIA CORP 14.62%Groupon Inc 1.78%
APPLE INC 9.64%Upbound Group Inc 1.59%
ALPHABET INC 9.10%Coupang Inc 1.55%
MICROSOFT CORP 5.20%Maplebear Inc 1.55%
META PLATFORMS INC 3.90%Revolve Group Inc 1.52%
BROADCOM INC 3.74%MarineMax Inc 1.52%
ELI LILLY and CO 2.25%PriceSmart Inc 1.51%
NETFLIX INC 2.23%Kohl's Corp 1.51%

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 XRT on the fields both publish, as of Sep 12, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
FBCG
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF
XRT
State Street(R) SPDR(R) S&P(R) Retail ETF
Where it sitsCore index fundCore index fund
IssuerFidelityState Street
What it isBlue Chip GrowthSPDR S&P Retail
Total return, 1 year+17.3%−3.0%
S&P 500 over the same days+17.5%+17.5%
Gap to the S&P 500−0.2 pts−20.6 pts
Expense ratio0.57%0.35%
Already in the S&P 50086.8%22.5%
Holdings21475

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.

XRT in plain words

XRT is an index equity fund tracking the SPDR S&P Retail. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned −3.0% 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, 22% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 75 positions, with the top ten at 16.1%. It sat 12.2% below its high of Nov 16, 2021 on Sep 11, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or XRT?
In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +17.3% and XRT returned −3.0%, so FBCG returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or XRT?
FBCG charges 0.57% a year and XRT charges 0.35%, so XRT is cheaper. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and XRT overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 87% of FBCG and 22% of XRT by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds. Between the two funds, 4% 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 XRT, 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 XRT, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/FBCG-XRT Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.

A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources