FLQM vs. AFMC

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FLQM (Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF) and AFMC (First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. FLQM is passively managed, while AFMC is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLQM returned 6.86%/yr vs 11.23%/yr for AFMC. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLQM charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for AFMC.

Performance

FLQM vs. AFMC - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLQM achieves a 1.19% return, which is significantly lower than AFMC's 18.08% return.

FLQM

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: -0.12%
• YTD: 1.19%
• 6M: -0.59%
• 1Y: 7.81%
• 3Y*: 10.89%
• 5Y*: 6.86%
• 10Y*: —

AFMC

• 1D: 0.85%
• 1M: 3.30%
• YTD: 18.08%
• 6M: 15.62%
• 1Y: 30.69%
• 3Y*: 20.43%
• 5Y*: 11.23%
• 10Y*: —

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

FLQM vs. AFMC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FLQM Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF	1.19%	5.16%	14.32%	17.47%	-12.95%	28.76%	15.50%	3.69%
AFMC First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF	18.08%	10.23%	19.06%	21.46%	-15.55%	25.75%	5.87%	1.97%

Correlation

The correlation between FLQM and AFMC is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2019	0.90

The correlation between FLQM and AFMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLQM vs. AFMC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLQM	AFMC
Consumer Cyclical	18.8%	13.4%
Industrials	17.9%	20.7%
Financial Services	15.1%	12.8%
Technology	13.4%	20.9%
Healthcare	12.3%	9.3%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	2.8%
Energy	5.3%	5.4%
Real Estate	4.3%	6.7%
Communication Services	3.3%	1.6%
Utilities	1.6%	1.1%
Basic Materials	0.2%	5.3%

Return for Risk

FLQM vs. AFMC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLQM

FLQM Risk / Return Rank: 20
FLQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
FLQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
FLQM Omega Ratio Rank: 18
FLQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
FLQM Martin Ratio Rank: 23

AFMC

AFMC Risk / Return Rank: 68
AFMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
AFMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
AFMC Omega Ratio Rank: 59
AFMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
AFMC Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

FLQM vs. AFMC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF (FLQM) and First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF (AFMC). 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.

	FLQM	AFMC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.64	2.03	-1.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.04	2.91	-1.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.35	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.04	3.76	-2.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.86	13.54	-10.68

FLQM vs. AFMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLQM Sharpe Ratio is 0.64, which is lower than the AFMC Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLQM and AFMC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FLQM vs. AFMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLQM drawdown since its inception was -37.26%, smaller than the maximum AFMC drawdown of -42.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLQM and AFMC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLQM	AFMC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.26%	-42.14%	+4.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.57%	-8.20%	+0.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.70%	-21.99%	+2.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.51%	-25.40%	+2.89%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.86%	-0.22%	-2.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.91%	-7.56%	+2.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.73%	2.27%	+0.46%

Volatility

FLQM vs. AFMC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF (FLQM) is 3.08%, while First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF (AFMC) has a volatility of 4.54%. This indicates that FLQM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AFMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLQM	AFMC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.08%	4.54%	-1.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.52%	11.30%	-2.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.24%	15.22%	-2.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.40%	18.96%	-2.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.45%	22.89%	-4.44%

FLQM vs. AFMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLQM has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than AFMC's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLQM vs. AFMC - Dividend Comparison

FLQM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.51%, more than AFMC's 0.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
AFMC First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF	0.77%	0.96%	0.64%	0.87%	1.42%	0.84%	1.05%	0.29%	0.00%	0.00%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLQM and AFMC in my portfolio?

FLQM and AFMC have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLQM or AFMC?

AFMC has higher volatility (4.54%) compared to FLQM (3.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLQM dropped -37.26% vs AFMC's -42.14%.

Which ETF is better, FLQM or AFMC?

On 5-year performance, AFMC leads with 11.23% vs 6.86% for FLQM. On fees, FLQM is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, FLQM has been the lower-risk option at 3.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLQM or AFMC?

Over the 5-year period, AFMC has performed better with a 11.23% return vs 6.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLQM or AFMC?

FLQM is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFMC.

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

FLQM has the higher dividend yield at 1.51%, compared with 0.77% for AFMC.

What is the main difference between FLQM and AFMC?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for FLQM and 0.65% for AFMC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AFMC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 0.64), 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.