FITZ vs. IQM
FITZ (Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FITZ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.
Performance
FITZ vs. IQM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
FITZ
- 1D
- -0.95%
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IQM
- 1D
- -1.20%
- 1M
- 9.28%
- YTD
- 38.49%
- 6M
- 34.62%
- 1Y
- 72.20%
- 3Y*
- 37.11%
- 5Y*
- 21.93%
- 10Y*
- —
FITZ vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
FITZ Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF | -1.46% |
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF | 3.56% |
Correlation
The correlation between FITZ and IQM is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026 | 0.30 |
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
FITZ vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank
FITZ
IQM
FITZ vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF (FITZ) 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FITZ | IQM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 2.57 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.76 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -6.98 | 0.95 | -7.94 |
Drawdowns
FITZ vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FITZ drawdown since its inception was -1.77%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FITZ and IQM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FITZ | IQM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -1.77% | -44.91% | +43.14% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.77% | -1.57% | -0.20% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.86% | -12.24% | +11.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 4.49% | — |
Volatility
FITZ vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FITZ | IQM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 9.33% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 22.97% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.00% | 28.28% | -18.28% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 10.00% | 28.90% | -18.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 10.00% | 30.71% | -20.71% |
FITZ vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison
FITZ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
FITZ vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison
Neither FITZ nor IQM has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FITZ Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 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
FITZ and IQM have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for FITZ.
FITZ and IQM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: Nicholas and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for FITZ and 0.50% for IQM.
Find the right allocation for FITZ 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