FBCG vs PWRD: Differences, Returns & Fees
FBCG and PWRD hold 8% of their weight in the same names, and FBCG returned +14.0% over the year. Net assets: $7.6bn on Sep 30, 2026 for Fidelity Blue Chip Growth ETF, and $1.5bn on Jul 31, 2026 for TCW Transform Systems ETF.
FBCG costs 0.18 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 15.2 points; FBCG is 4.8 times larger.
| FBCG | PWRD | |
|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.57% | 0.75% |
| Net assets, as of Jul 31, 2026 | $6.9bn | $1.5bn |
| Total return, 1 year | +14.0% | −1.2% |
| What it tracks | No index, actively managed | No index, actively managed |
| Holdings in common | 8% | |
| Top ten holdings, share of the fund | 57.2% | 52.0% |
| Below its high | 5.8%, high on Oct 6, 2026 | 20.1%, high on Jun 30, 2026 |
Holdings in common uses holdings dated Jul 31, 2026.
FBCG and PWRD are built for the same job. How do they differ in cost, holdings and results?
- Holdings in common. 8% of the weight is in the same securities (holdings dated Jul 31, 2026).
- One-year total return. Over 1 year to Oct 20, 2026 FBCG returned +14.0% and PWRD −1.2% with distributions reinvested, a gap of 15.2 points.
- Number of holdings. FBCG holds 230 positions and PWRD holds 31.
Data as of Oct 20, 2026. The differences are picked by a fixed rule, in a fixed order; the PDF prints it. Page 2 has the returns, overlap, risks and sources.
Take this comparison to a client
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
Not advice. The brief uses the figures on this page, with the data date and a report id. Saved comparisons are listed on your saved page; privacy.
What they hold in common
By the books each fund has filed, FBCG and PWRD hold 8% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Holdings dated Jul 31, 2026.
half
8% in common
On the same fields
FBCG and PWRD on the fields both publish, as of Oct 20, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
About FBCG
FBCG is actively managed and tracks no index. Over the year to Oct 20, 2026 it returned +14.0% with distributions reinvested, against +15.9% 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 5.8% below its high of Oct 6, 2026 on Oct 20, 2026.
About PWRD
PWRD is actively managed and tracks no index. Over the year to Oct 20, 2026 it returned −1.2% with distributions reinvested. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.75% a year. By its holdings filed for Jul 31, 2026, 57% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 31 positions, with the top ten at 52.0%. It sat 20.1% below its high of Jun 30, 2026 on Oct 20, 2026.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, FBCG or PWRD?
- In the year to Oct 20, 2026, with distributions reinvested, FBCG returned +14.0% and PWRD −1.2%.
- Which is cheaper, FBCG or PWRD?
- FBCG is cheaper, by 0.18 percentage points a year. That is about $18 on $10,000 held for a year. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure; a link is not an endorsement. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Overlap adds up the smaller of the two weights for each security both funds hold.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, FBCG against PWRD, data as of Oct 20, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/fbcg-vs-pwrd
ETFIQ. (Oct 20, 2026). FBCG against PWRD. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/any/fbcg-vs-pwrd
[FBCG against PWRD (ETFIQ, Oct 20, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/any/fbcg-vs-pwrd)
Free to use with attribution for figures ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.