FMIL vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

FMIL (Fidelity New Millennium ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FMIL is a Large Cap Blend 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 5 years, FMIL returned 17.27%/yr vs 22.24%/yr for IQM. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FMIL charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

FMIL vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity New Millennium ETF (FMIL) 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, FMIL achieves a 11.82% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 42.16% return.

FMIL

• 1D: 1.29%
• 1M: 2.38%
• YTD: 11.82%
• 6M: 12.47%
• 1Y: 28.51%
• 3Y*: 22.73%
• 5Y*: 17.27%
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: 4.25%
• 1M: 9.92%
• YTD: 42.16%
• 6M: 41.46%
• 1Y: 77.22%
• 3Y*: 36.45%
• 5Y*: 22.24%
• 10Y*: —

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

FMIL vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FMIL Fidelity New Millennium ETF	11.82%	17.67%	27.89%	25.07%	-0.04%	24.53%	19.50%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	42.16%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	57.33%

Correlation

The correlation between FMIL and IQM is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020	0.73

The correlation between FMIL and IQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.73 (all time) to 0.84 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FMIL vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FMIL	IQM
Technology	32.5%	68.4%
Financial Services	11.6%	-
Industrials	11.5%	17.1%
Communication Services	10.9%	2.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.7%	2.9%
Healthcare	8.1%	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	-
Energy	4.4%	2.3%
Utilities	2.6%	3.2%
Basic Materials	1.7%	-
Real Estate	1.1%	-

Return for Risk

FMIL vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FMIL

FMIL Risk / Return Rank: 66
FMIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
FMIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
FMIL Omega Ratio Rank: 67
FMIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
FMIL Martin Ratio Rank: 72

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 79
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 73
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

FMIL vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity New Millennium ETF (FMIL) 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.

	FMIL	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	2.50	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.86	2.90	-0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.40	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	5.24	-2.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.65	16.44	-3.80

FMIL vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FMIL Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is comparable to the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FMIL 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.

Drawdowns

FMIL vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FMIL drawdown since its inception was -19.72%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FMIL and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FMIL	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.72%	-44.91%	+25.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.98%	-14.71%	+4.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.72%	-30.42%	+10.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.72%	-44.91%	+25.19%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.98%	-12.19%	+9.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	4.68%	-2.45%

Volatility

FMIL vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity New Millennium ETF (FMIL) is 5.01%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 13.85%. This indicates that FMIL 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

	FMIL	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.01%	13.85%	-8.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.65%	25.66%	-15.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.42%	30.79%	-17.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.99%	29.42%	-12.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.68%	31.01%	-13.33%

FMIL vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FMIL has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

FMIL vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

FMIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FMIL Fidelity New Millennium ETF	0.98%	1.10%	0.82%	0.57%	1.67%	1.68%	0.89%
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 FMIL and IQM in my portfolio?

FMIL and IQM have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FMIL or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (13.85%) compared to FMIL (5.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FMIL dropped -19.72% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, FMIL or IQM?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 22.24% vs 17.27% for FMIL. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FMIL has been the lower-risk option at 5.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FMIL or IQM?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 22.24% return vs 17.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FMIL or IQM?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for FMIL.

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

FMIL has the higher dividend yield at 0.98%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between FMIL and IQM?

FMIL is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while IQM is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for FMIL and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.50 vs 2.11), 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.