FBOT vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FBOT (Fidelity Disruptive Automation ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FBOT is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while IQM is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FBOT returned 39.88% vs 75.07% for IQM. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.

Performance

FBOT vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Disruptive Automation ETF (FBOT) 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, FBOT achieves a 20.06% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 40.18% return.

FBOT

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 5.52%
• YTD: 20.06%
• 6M: 21.90%
• 1Y: 39.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 11.94%
• YTD: 40.18%
• 6M: 38.57%
• 1Y: 75.07%
• 3Y*: 37.62%
• 5Y*: 22.22%
• 10Y*: —

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

FBOT vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FBOT Fidelity Disruptive Automation ETF	20.06%	19.15%	12.58%	-1.03%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	40.18%	30.76%	31.03%	6.31%

Correlation

The correlation between FBOT and IQM is 0.84, 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	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 13, 2023	0.85

The correlation between FBOT and IQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

FBOT vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FBOT	IQM
Industrials	51.0%	19.9%
Technology	37.5%	65.9%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	4.1%
Communication Services	4.2%	2.1%
Healthcare	0.9%	1.1%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	2.7%
Financial Services	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

FBOT vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBOT

FBOT Risk / Return Rank: 56
FBOT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
FBOT Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
FBOT Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FBOT Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
FBOT Martin Ratio Rank: 59

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 78
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

FBOT vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptive Automation ETF (FBOT) 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.

	FBOT	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.98	2.67	-0.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	3.11	-0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.43	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.64	5.13	-2.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.50	16.79	-6.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FBOT vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBOT Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is comparable to the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBOT 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

	FBOT	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.98	2.67	-0.69
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.77	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.81	0.96	-0.15

Drawdowns

FBOT vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBOT drawdown since its inception was -23.61%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBOT and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBOT	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.61%	-44.91%	+21.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.17%	-14.71%	-0.46%
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	-0.34%	-0.37%	+0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.15%	-12.25%	+7.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.81%	4.49%	-0.68%

Volatility

FBOT vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Disruptive Automation ETF (FBOT) is 5.59%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.20%. This indicates that FBOT 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

	FBOT	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.59%	9.20%	-3.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.00%	22.92%	-6.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.25%	28.27%	-8.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.95%	28.91%	-7.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.95%	30.72%	-9.77%

FBOT vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FBOT vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

FBOT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.59%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FBOT Fidelity Disruptive Automation ETF	0.59%	0.81%	0.31%	0.20%	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 FBOT and IQM in my portfolio?

FBOT and IQM have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FBOT or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (9.20%) compared to FBOT (5.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBOT dropped -23.61% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, FBOT or IQM?

On 1-year performance, IQM leads with 75.07% vs 39.88% for FBOT. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, FBOT has been the lower-risk option at 5.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBOT or IQM?

Over the 1-year period, IQM has performed better with a 75.07% return vs 39.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBOT or IQM?

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

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

FBOT has the higher dividend yield at 0.59%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between FBOT and IQM?

FBOT is categorized as Technology Equities, while IQM is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Franklin Templeton.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 1.98), 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.