Data as of Oct 28, 2026.

vsCompare their flowsaskIQ about these two fundsAsk the committee about these two funds
Across categories

FBCG vs IWF: Differences, Returns & Fees

Share
Share on XDownload as PDF

Over the year to Oct 28, 2026, FBCG returned +9.5% to IWF's +0.9%; 59% of their weight is in the same names.

askIQ about this page

askIQ about FBCG and IWF

Net assets: $7.6bn on Sep 30, 2026 for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF, and $124.7bn on Oct 27, 2026 for iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF.

At a glance
+9.5%
FBCG total return, 1 year
+0.9%
IWF total return, 1 year
0.57%
FBCG expense ratio
0.18%
IWF expense ratio

Pair scorecard

IWF costs 0.39 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 8.6 points; IWF is 16.8 times larger.

FBCG vs IWF: Differences, Returns & Fees
MeasureFBCGIWF
Return
Total return, 1 year+9.5%+0.9%
Drawdown
Below its high5.7%, high on Oct 6, 20264.8%, high on Oct 6, 2026
Benchmark
What it tracksNo index, actively managedRussell 1000 Growth Index
Cost and size
Expense ratio0.57%0.18%
Net assets, as of Sep 30, 2026$7.6bn$127.7bn
Holdings
Holdings in common59%
Top ten holdings, share of the fund57.2%57.5%

Holdings in common uses holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Oct 27, 2026. Method

Risk and return

Jun 12, 2020 to Oct 23, 2026 · 332 weekly returns
FBCG IWF
Return
Total return edge FBCG +197.7% +169.3%
Annualized edge FBCG (slight) +18.6% +16.8%
Price return edge FBCG +197.2% +159.1%
Risk
Volatility edge IWF 23.9% 20.2%
Max drawdown edge IWF −42.6% −32.5%
Downside capture 126.3% 100.1%
Beta 1.39 1.00
Risk-adjusted
Sharpe edge Tie 0.71 0.72
Sortino edge Tie 1.09 1.11
Treynor 0.121 0.149
Calmar edge IWF 0.44 0.52
Against the benchmark
Alpha −2.6% a year −0.1% a year
Alpha t-stat −0.70 −0.58
Information ratio 0.26 −0.11
Tracking error 11.2% 1.0%

Each against its own benchmark: FBCG against VOO, Jun 12, 2020 to Oct 23, 2026; IWF against VONG, Oct 1, 2010 to Oct 23, 2026.

Reading

FBCG returned more: +197.7% to +169.3%. IWF swung less: 20.2% to 23.9%. IWF fell less at its worst: −32.5% to −42.6%.

Full scorecard

19 measures, with how each is measured
Open ↓
Risk and return: FBCG vs IWF: Differences, Returns & Fees
MeasureFBCGIWFEdgeHow it is measured
Return
Total return+197.7%+169.3%FBCGPrice change plus distributions, reinvested.
Annualized+18.6%+16.8%FBCG (slight)Total return as a yearly rate.
Price return+197.2%+159.1%FBCGPrice change alone, distributions left out.
Risk
Volatility23.9%20.2%IWFSpread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier.
Downside deviation15.5%13.0%IWFLike volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate.
Max drawdown−42.6%−32.5%IWFDeepest fall from a high to the low after it.
Upside capture168.9%99.8%Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose.
Downside capture126.3%100.1%Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better.
Beta1.391.00Not an edgeHow far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves.
R squared0.851.00Not an edgeShare of its weekly moves its benchmark explains.
Risk-adjusted
Sharpe0.710.72TieReturn above Treasury bills per unit of volatility.
Sortino1.091.11TieReturn above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation.
Treynor0.1210.149Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta.
Calmar0.440.52IWFAnnualized return divided by the max drawdown.
Against the benchmark
BenchmarkVOOVONGThe ETF each fund is measured against.
Alpha−2.6% a year−0.1% a yearNot significantYearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts.
Alpha t-stat−0.70−0.58Not an edgeHow sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance.
Alpha range−9.9% to +4.7%−0.6% to +0.3%Includes zeroThe 95% range for the yearly alpha.
Information ratio0.26−0.11Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error.
Tracking error11.2%1.0%Not an edgeHow far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized.

Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 332 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.

What they share

59%

By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and IWF hold 59% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Jul 31, 2026 and Oct 27, 2026.

0 half 100%

half

59% in common

Positions both hold · largest shared weight first FBCG IWF
NVIDIA CORP 14.90% 15.30%
APPLE INC 9.31% 8.18%
ALPHABET INC 9.27% 5.62%
MICROSOFT CORP 4.94% 5.94%
BROADCOM INC 4.38% 4.79%
META PLATFORMS INC 2.31% 3.36%
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC 1.97% 3.15%
TESLA INC 1.28% 3.58%
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES INC 1.06% 2.74%
MASTERCARD INC 0.85% 1.48%
GE VERNOVA INC 0.77% 0.72%
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY INC 0.97% 0.64%
Only in one fund ↓
Only in FBCG
ELI LILLY and CO 2.71%
SANDISK CORP 1.28%
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG CO LTD 1.17%
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 0.68%
CELESTICA INC 0.66%
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS PLC 0.64%
WELLTOWER INC 0.62%
GILEAD SCIENCES INC 0.57%
Only in IWF
ELI LILLY 3.08%
APPLIED MATERIAL INC 0.94%
TEXAS INSTRUMENT 0.85%
AMPHENOL CORP CLASS A 0.58%
SANDISK 0.57%
AMGEN INC 0.52%
INTUITIVE SURGICAL 0.47%
LOCKHEED MARTIN 0.38%
Check overlap with more funds →

Side by side

FBCG Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF IWF iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF
Where it sits Stock ETF Stock ETF
What it is Actively managed Tracks the Russell 1000 growth
Total return, 1 year +9.5% +0.9%
Its benchmark over the same days +13.7% (VOO) +1.1% (VONG)
Gap to its benchmark −4.2 pts vs VOO −0.2 pts vs VONG
Expense ratio 0.57% 0.18%
Already in the S&P 500 85.3% 93.5%
Holdings 230 374
Net assets, FBCG as of Sep 30, 2026 and IWF as of Oct 27, 2026 $7.6bn $124.7bn

FBCG and IWF on the fields both publish, as of Oct 28, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

Client brief · page 1 of 2 Report BR-B9C7677E3A

FBCG and IWF are built for the same job. How do they differ in cost, holdings and results?

  1. What each follows. FBCG follows No index, actively managed and IWF follows Russell 1000 Growth Index.
  2. One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 28, 2026 FBCG returned +9.5% and IWF +0.9% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 8.6 points.
  3. Cost. FBCG charges 0.57% of assets a year and IWF 0.18%, a gap of 0.39 points.

Data as of Oct 28, 2026.

The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.

Your saved page · Privacy.

Alert

IWF flows, by email on Sundays.

One-click unsubscribe. See Privacy.

About each fund
FBCG

FBCG is actively managed and tracks no index. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +9.5% with distributions reinvested, against +13.7% for its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.57% a year. By its holdings filed for Jul 31, 2026, 85% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 230 positions, with the top ten at 57.2%. It sat 5.7% below its high of Oct 6, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.

IWF

IWF tracks the Russell 1000 growth. Over the year to Oct 28, 2026 it returned +0.9% with distributions reinvested, against +1.1% for its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.18% a year. By its holdings published by its issuer for Oct 27, 2026, 94% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 374 positions, with the top ten at 57.5%. It sat 4.8% below its high of Oct 6, 2026 on Oct 28, 2026.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or IWF?
In the year to Oct 28, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +9.5% and IWF +0.9%.
Which is cheaper, FBCG or IWF?
IWF is cheaper, by 0.39 percentage points a year. That is about $39 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
How much do FBCG and IWF overlap with the S&P 500?
By their latest filed holdings, 85% of FBCG and 94% of IWF by weight is stocks the S&P 500 already holds.
Other comparisons
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown

ETFIQ, FBCG against IWF, data as of Oct 28, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/fbcg-vs-iwf

Open data →

Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.