FNGS vs. IQM

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM).

FNGS and IQM are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FNGS is a passively managed fund by BMO that tracks the performance of the NYSE FANG+ Index. It was launched on Nov 12, 2019. IQM is an actively managed fund by Franklin Templeton. It was launched on Feb 25, 2020.

Performance

FNGS vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

FNGS vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	-12.40%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	88.71%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	1.18%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	78.48%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGS achieves a -12.40% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 1.18% return.

FNGS

• 1D: 4.69%
• 1M: -4.21%
• YTD: -12.40%
• 6M: -14.82%
• 1Y: 19.65%
• 3Y*: 30.42%
• 5Y*: 15.68%
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: 6.12%
• 1M: -5.61%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 6M: 1.33%
• 1Y: 55.72%
• 3Y*: 26.13%
• 5Y*: 14.95%
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGS vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNGS has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

FNGS

MicroSectors FANG+ ETN

IQM

Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF

Return for Risk

FNGS vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNGS

FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 41
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 45
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 32

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 88
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

FNGS vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) 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.

	FNGS	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.73	1.68	-0.95
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	2.29	-1.03
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.32	-0.15
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.84	3.72	-2.88
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.59	11.65	-9.06
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FNGS vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.73, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS and IQM, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FNGS	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73	1.68	-0.95
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	0.52	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.90	0.77	+0.12

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and IQM is 0.83, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

FNGS vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGS nor IQM has paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	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%

Drawdowns

FNGS vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNGS drawdown since its inception was -48.98%, which is greater than IQM's maximum drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNGS and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNGS	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.98%	-44.91%	-4.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.93%	-14.71%	-8.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.98%	-44.91%	-4.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.32%	-8.68%	-10.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.02%	-12.55%	+1.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.43%	4.70%	+2.73%

Volatility

FNGS vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) is 8.31%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 12.90%. This indicates that FNGS 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

	FNGS	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.31%	12.90%	-4.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.68%	23.48%	-7.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.98%	33.37%	-6.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.97%	28.67%	+1.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.34%	30.73%	+0.61%