CHGX vs. IQM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CHGX (Stance Sustainable Beta ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. CHGX is passively managed, while IQM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CHGX returned 9.09%/yr vs 15.91%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.81 means they have usually moved in the same direction. CHGX charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

CHGX vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Stance Sustainable Beta ETF (CHGX) 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, CHGX achieves a 19.57% return, which is significantly higher than IQM's 17.24% return.

CHGX

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -0.88%
• 6M: 16.02%
• YTD: 19.57%
• 1Y: 26.43%
• 3Y*: 17.27%
• 5Y*: 9.09%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.17%

IQM

• 1D: 0.65%
• 1M: -8.20%
• 6M: 11.29%
• YTD: 17.24%
• 1Y: 32.29%
• 3Y*: 27.64%
• 5Y*: 15.91%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 24.95%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CHGX Stance Sustainable Beta ETF	$397.74K	$582.66K	$623.16K
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	$879.80K	$730.37K	$921.63K

CHGX vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CHGX Stance Sustainable Beta ETF	19.57%	12.13%	15.16%	23.65%	-21.77%	22.72%	27.48%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	17.24%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	76.92%

Correlation

The correlation between CHGX and IQM is 0.70, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.77
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2020	0.81

The correlation between CHGX and IQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.83 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CHGX vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CHGX	IQM
Technology	33.8%	70.5%
Financial Services	18.7%	-
Healthcare	14.7%	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	2.7%
Communication Services	8.0%	1.1%
Real Estate	4.1%	-
Industrials	3.8%	14.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	-
Energy	1.0%	3.1%
Utilities	1.0%	3.5%
Basic Materials	0.9%	-

Return for Risk

CHGX vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CHGX

CHGX Risk / Return Rank: 76
CHGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
CHGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
CHGX Omega Ratio Rank: 69
CHGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
CHGX Martin Ratio Rank: 81

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 35
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 35
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 42

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CHGX vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Stance Sustainable Beta ETF (CHGX) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	CHGX	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.72	0.83	+0.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.41	1.26	+1.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.16	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.97	1.18	+1.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.60	4.54	+6.06

CHGX vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CHGX Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is higher than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 0.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CHGX 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.

Drawdowns

CHGX vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CHGX drawdown since its inception was -35.49%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CHGX and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CHGX	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.49%	-44.91%	+9.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.50%	-25.28%	+16.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.09%	-30.42%	+12.33%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.26%	-44.91%	+14.65%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.00%	-18.62%	+15.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.36%	-12.19%	+5.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.38%	6.58%	-4.20%

Volatility

CHGX vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Stance Sustainable Beta ETF (CHGX) is 3.43%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 16.22%. This indicates that CHGX 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

	CHGX	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.43%	16.22%	-12.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.75%	31.20%	-19.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.75%	36.13%	-21.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.71%	30.62%	-12.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.30%	31.69%	-12.39%

CHGX vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CHGX has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

CHGX vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

CHGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CHGX Stance Sustainable Beta ETF	0.56%	0.67%	0.76%	0.94%	1.11%	0.56%	0.58%	0.86%	0.00%	0.59%
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 CHGX and IQM in my portfolio?

CHGX and IQM have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CHGX or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (16.22%) compared to CHGX (3.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CHGX dropped -35.49% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, CHGX or IQM?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 15.91% vs 9.09% for CHGX. On fees, CHGX is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, CHGX has been the lower-risk option at 3.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CHGX or IQM?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 15.91% return vs 9.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CHGX or IQM?

CHGX is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for IQM.

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

CHGX has the higher dividend yield at 0.56%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between CHGX and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Stance and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for CHGX and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CHGX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.72 vs 0.83), 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.