CZA vs. FLQM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) and FLQM (Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - CZA tracks the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index while FLQM tracks the LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CZA returned 6.64%/yr vs 6.76%/yr for FLQM. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CZA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for FLQM.

Performance

CZA vs. FLQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF (FLQM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CZA achieves a 5.97% return, which is significantly higher than FLQM's 1.21% return.

CZA

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 1.90%
• YTD: 5.97%
• 6M: 6.65%
• 1Y: 13.18%
• 3Y*: 12.55%
• 5Y*: 6.64%
• 10Y*: 10.10%

FLQM

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 1.37%
• YTD: 1.21%
• 6M: 1.13%
• 1Y: 6.77%
• 3Y*: 11.25%
• 5Y*: 6.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

CZA vs. FLQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	5.97%	8.31%	12.14%	7.00%	-5.91%	27.42%	0.35%	32.27%	-8.89%	12.30%
FLQM Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF	1.21%	5.16%	14.32%	17.47%	-12.95%	28.76%	15.50%	28.56%	-4.24%	10.32%

Correlation

The correlation between CZA and FLQM is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 1, 2017	0.84

The correlation between CZA and FLQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

CZA vs. FLQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CZA	FLQM
Financial Services	23.8%	15.4%
Industrials	16.0%	18.4%
Healthcare	12.6%	12.2%
Utilities	10.6%	1.6%
Real Estate	10.5%	4.4%
Technology	10.5%	12.4%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	18.7%
Basic Materials	4.2%	0.2%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	7.7%
Energy	0.8%	5.4%
Communication Services	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

CZA vs. FLQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

CZA

CZA Risk / Return Rank: 30
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 27
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 36

FLQM

FLQM Risk / Return Rank: 18
FLQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
FLQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
FLQM Omega Ratio Rank: 16
FLQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
FLQM Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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.

CZA vs. FLQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF (FLQM). 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.

	CZA	FLQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.04	0.56	+0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.59	0.92	+0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.10	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.44	0.90	+0.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.48	2.51	+2.98
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CZA vs. FLQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZA Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is higher than the FLQM Sharpe Ratio of 0.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZA and FLQM, 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

	CZA	FLQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.04	0.56	+0.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	0.41	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.58	-0.10

Drawdowns

CZA vs. FLQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, which is greater than FLQM's maximum drawdown of -37.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and FLQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZA	FLQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.20%	-37.26%	-15.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.21%	-7.57%	-1.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	-19.70%	+0.78%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.92%	-22.51%	+3.59%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.78%	-2.85%	+2.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.88%	-4.92%	-1.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.41%	2.71%	-0.30%

Volatility

CZA vs. FLQM - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) has a higher volatility of 3.13% compared to Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF (FLQM) at 2.75%. This indicates that CZA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLQM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CZA	FLQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.13%	2.75%	+0.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.30%	8.34%	+0.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.78%	12.18%	+0.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	16.39%	-0.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.28%	18.48%	+0.80%

CZA vs. FLQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQM's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

CZA vs. FLQM - Dividend Comparison

CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, less than FLQM's 1.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	1.47%	1.56%	1.27%	1.36%	1.71%	0.89%	1.42%	1.40%	1.27%	1.10%	1.87%	1.37%
FLQM Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF	1.51%	1.49%	1.28%	1.27%	1.33%	1.05%	1.10%	1.37%	1.42%	1.15%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CZA and FLQM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, CZA and FLQM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, CZA or FLQM?

CZA has higher volatility (3.13%) compared to FLQM (2.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZA dropped -53.20% vs FLQM's -37.26%.

Which ETF is better, CZA or FLQM?

On 5-year performance, FLQM leads with 6.76% vs 6.64% for CZA. On fees, FLQM is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, FLQM has been the lower-risk option at 2.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CZA or FLQM?

Over the 5-year period, FLQM has performed better with a 6.76% return vs 6.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CZA or FLQM?

FLQM is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CZA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CZA or FLQM?

FLQM has the higher dividend yield at 1.51%, compared with 1.47% for CZA.

What is the main difference between CZA and FLQM?

CZA tracks Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index, while FLQM tracks LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CZA and 0.30% for FLQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CZA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.04 vs 0.56), 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.