CLCG vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

CLCG (Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.

Performance

CLCG vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF (CLCG) 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, CLCG achieves a 4.16% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 34.32% return.

CLCG

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: -2.85%
• YTD: 4.16%
• 6M: 2.34%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: 2.95%
• YTD: 34.32%
• 6M: 30.89%
• 1Y: 61.93%
• 3Y*: 35.24%
• 5Y*: 20.00%
• 10Y*: —

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

CLCG vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CLCG Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF	4.16%	8.42%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	34.32%	14.27%

Correlation

The correlation between CLCG and IQM is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2025	0.78

Return for Risk

CLCG vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLCG

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 70
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 62
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

CLCG vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF (CLCG) 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.

	CLCG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.98	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.40	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.33	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	4.23	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	13.19	—

Drawdowns

CLCG vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLCG drawdown since its inception was -16.32%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLCG and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLCG	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.32%	-44.91%	+28.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-14.71%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-30.42%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.61%	-6.78%	+1.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.84%	-12.18%	+8.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	4.71%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CLCG	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	15.35%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	26.01%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.66%	31.46%	-13.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.66%	29.56%	-11.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.66%	31.09%	-13.43%

CLCG vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CLCG and IQM have an expense ratio of 0.50%.

Dividends

CLCG vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

CLCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CLCG Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF	0.06%	0.07%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.17%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLCG and IQM in my portfolio?

CLCG and IQM have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CLCG or IQM?

Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLCG or IQM?

CLCG and IQM have the same expense ratio: 0.50% per year.

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

CLCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.06%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between CLCG and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Crossmark and Franklin Templeton.