BIBL vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

BIBL (Inspire 100 ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. BIBL is passively managed, while IQM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, BIBL returned 9.44%/yr vs 19.91%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BIBL charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

BIBL vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BIBL achieves a 20.10% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 27.43% return.

BIBL

• 1D: -3.23%
• 1M: 0.73%
• YTD: 20.10%
• 6M: 18.49%
• 1Y: 36.38%
• 3Y*: 20.92%
• 5Y*: 9.44%
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: -7.99%
• 1M: -1.95%
• YTD: 27.43%
• 6M: 24.00%
• 1Y: 60.81%
• 3Y*: 33.28%
• 5Y*: 19.91%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BIBL vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	20.10%	17.27%	12.49%	17.87%	-23.26%	27.44%	29.12%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	27.43%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	78.48%

Correlation

The correlation between BIBL and IQM is 0.71, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2020	0.81

The correlation between BIBL and IQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.71 (1 year) to 0.83 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BIBL vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BIBL	IQM
Technology	30.1%	65.9%
Industrials	26.8%	19.9%
Real Estate	14.7%	-
Financial Services	8.3%	-
Energy	6.9%	2.7%
Healthcare	4.3%	1.1%
Basic Materials	4.2%	-
Utilities	3.5%	3.3%
Consumer Defensive	0.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.3%	4.1%
Communication Services	-	2.1%

Return for Risk

BIBL vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

BIBL

BIBL Risk / Return Rank: 77
BIBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
BIBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
BIBL Omega Ratio Rank: 71
BIBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
BIBL Martin Ratio Rank: 86

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 67
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 59
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 74

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

BIBL vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	BIBL	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	2.08	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.09	2.48	+0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.35	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.09	4.16	-0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.62	13.48	+4.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BIBL vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BIBL Sharpe Ratio is 2.31, which is comparable to the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BIBL and IQM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BIBL	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.31	2.08	+0.23
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.48	0.69	-0.20
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	0.89	-0.29

Drawdowns

BIBL vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BIBL drawdown since its inception was -36.12%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BIBL and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BIBL	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.12%	-44.91%	+8.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.94%	-14.71%	+5.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.60%	-30.42%	+9.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.85%	-44.91%	+14.06%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.23%	-9.44%	+6.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.04%	-12.24%	+5.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.07%	4.52%	-2.45%

Volatility

BIBL vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL) is 5.71%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 12.53%. This indicates that BIBL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IQM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BIBL	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.71%	12.53%	-6.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.07%	24.51%	-11.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.82%	29.45%	-13.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.63%	29.11%	-9.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.10%	30.87%	-9.77%

BIBL vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BIBL has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

BIBL vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

BIBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.98%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	0.98%	1.01%	0.92%	1.02%	0.98%	17.87%	1.67%	1.30%	1.49%	0.31%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.17%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BIBL and IQM in my portfolio?

BIBL and IQM have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BIBL or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (12.53%) compared to BIBL (5.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BIBL dropped -36.12% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, BIBL or IQM?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 19.91% vs 9.44% for BIBL. On fees, BIBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, BIBL has been the lower-risk option at 5.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BIBL or IQM?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 19.91% return vs 9.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BIBL or IQM?

BIBL is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for IQM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BIBL or IQM?

BIBL has the higher dividend yield at 0.98%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between BIBL and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Inspire and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for BIBL and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.31 vs 2.08), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.