FFLG
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF
HML
RMW
Adj. R2
0.939
Rel. Sharpe
0.549
Mkt beta
1.21
AUM
US$528M
MER
0.38%
Valuation
1102
ETF comparison
Verified factor-similar pair
FFLG vs ILCG
These US-listed equity ETFs share verified FF6 US factor exposure. The modeled volatility of their factor-return difference is at or below 3% annualized on both the same 36-month window and a longer factor-history check.
HML
Current similarity score
83
Factor-similar
The score is 100 for identical fitted exposures and 80 at the 3% modeled tracking-error limit. It includes market and non-market factors; it does not indicate which fund earned or is expected to earn more. How to read this score.
Quick Read
- ILCG has the higher backtested relative Sharpe (0.680 vs 0.549).
- ILCG has the lower published fee (0.04% vs 0.38%).
- ILCG is cheaper on dividend valuation (180 vs 1102, where 100 is each fund's historical median).
- ILCG has the stronger regression fit (adjusted R-squared 0.956 vs 0.939).
These are screening signals, not a complete review of portfolio construction, turnover, taxes, or trading quality.
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
HML
Adj. R2
0.956
Rel. Sharpe
0.680
Mkt beta
1.13
AUM
US$2.7B
MER
0.04%
Valuation
180
Market beta uses the common 36-month window through 2026-08. Adjusted R² and relative Sharpe describe each fund's separately published full-history model.
Factor Exposure Match
Blue bars compare factor beta magnitude from the same 36 months shown above. Green bars compare absolute t-stat strength; dim bars indicate |t| below 1.96. Every factor enters the distance calculation regardless of its t-statistic.
SMB
diff +0.00
HML
diff +0.04
RMW
diff -0.17
CMA
diff +0.08
UMD
diff +0.03
What Happened Over the Same 36 Months
FFLG adjusted total-return CAGR
24.49%
ILCG adjusted total-return CAGR
22.66%
FFLG ahead by 1.83 percentage points/year over 2023-09 through 2026-08. This is the observed difference between annualized compounded returns from adjusted prices, not an expected return or a factor-model estimate.
Historical factor attribution
Signed contribution to FFLG minus ILCG, percentage points/year, using fitted 36-month exposures and average factor returns over those same months:
Market factor
+1.26
Other factors, combined
+1.16
Total factor-implied difference
+2.41
This arithmetic-average factor attribution excludes the regression intercept and fund-specific return. It therefore need not equal the observed CAGR difference and is not a forecast.
Why This Pair Matches
Modeled factor tracking error · 36m
2.57%/yr
Modeled tracking error · 120m factor history
2.11%/yr
Mkt beta diff
0.08
Rel. Sharpe diff
0.132
Fitted exposures and factor covariance estimate the volatility, not the average or direction, of the funds' modeled return difference. The common regression window is 2023-09 through 2026-08. A short-window estimate and a longer factor-history check must both be at or below 3.000%; this is a screening limit, not a forecast. Holdings, turnover, taxes and trading costs require a separate review. The Sharpe figures elsewhere on this page come from each fund's published full-history model and do not enter similarity ranking. See the full methodology.
Monthly updates
Get the next US ETF leaders update
Get one monthly email when the US leaders table refreshes, plus methodology and comparison-page updates.
Monthly leaders refresh
Download-access updates
Low-volume research notes
One monthly email when the data drop lands. This browser will remember you after signup.