CHGX vs. IQM
CHGX (Change Finance U.S. Large Cap Fossil Fuel Free 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 11.13%/yr vs 22.22%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CHGX charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.
Performance
CHGX vs. IQM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CHGX achieves a 22.80% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 40.18% return.
CHGX
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- 10.61%
- YTD
- 22.80%
- 6M
- 22.28%
- 1Y
- 33.91%
- 3Y*
- 21.19%
- 5Y*
- 11.13%
- 10Y*
- —
IQM
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- 11.94%
- YTD
- 40.18%
- 6M
- 38.57%
- 1Y
- 75.07%
- 3Y*
- 37.62%
- 5Y*
- 22.22%
- 10Y*
- —
CHGX vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CHGX Change Finance U.S. Large Cap Fossil Fuel Free ETF | 22.80% | 12.13% | 15.16% | 23.65% | -21.77% | 22.72% | 32.44% |
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF | 40.18% | 30.76% | 31.03% | 41.06% | -33.36% | 25.18% | 78.48% |
Correlation
The correlation between CHGX and IQM is 0.67, 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 | 0.67 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.77 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.84 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2020 | 0.82 |
The correlation between CHGX and IQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (1 year) to 0.84 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
CHGX vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CHGX
IQM
Technology
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Industrials
Real Estate
-
Basic Materials
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
Utilities
Technology
CHGX
IQM
Financial Services
CHGX
IQM
-
Healthcare
CHGX
IQM
Consumer Cyclical
CHGX
IQM
Communication Services
CHGX
IQM
Industrials
CHGX
IQM
Real Estate
CHGX
IQM
-
Basic Materials
CHGX
IQM
-
Consumer Defensive
CHGX
IQM
-
Energy
CHGX
IQM
Utilities
CHGX
IQM
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CHGX vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank
CHGX
IQM
CHGX vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Change Finance U.S. Large Cap Fossil Fuel Free 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.
| CHGX | IQM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.18 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.34 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.42 | 1.43 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.01 | 5.13 | -1.12 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.81 | 16.79 | -0.97 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CHGX | IQM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.49 | 2.67 | -0.18 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.64 | 0.77 | -0.14 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.72 | 0.96 | -0.25 |
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CHGX | IQM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -35.49% | -44.91% | +9.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.50% | -14.71% | +6.21% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.37% | -0.37% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.43% | -12.25% | +5.82% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.15% | 4.49% | -2.34% |
Volatility
CHGX vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Change Finance U.S. Large Cap Fossil Fuel Free ETF (CHGX) is 3.97%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.20%. 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CHGX | IQM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.97% | 9.20% | -5.23% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.67% | 22.92% | -12.25% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.70% | 28.27% | -14.57% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.58% | 28.91% | -11.33% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.35% | 30.72% | -11.37% |
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 0.55%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CHGX Change Finance U.S. Large Cap Fossil Fuel Free ETF | 0.55% | 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
CHGX and IQM have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IQM has higher volatility (9.20%) compared to CHGX (3.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CHGX dropped -35.49% vs IQM's -44.91%.
On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 22.22% vs 11.13% for CHGX. On fees, CHGX is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, CHGX has been the lower-risk option at 3.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 22.22% return vs 11.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CHGX is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for IQM.
CHGX has the higher dividend yield at 0.55%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.
They also come from different issuers: Change Finance and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for CHGX and 0.50% for IQM.
IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 2.49), 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.
Find the right allocation for CHGX and IQM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer