FNGS vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FNGS is passively managed, while IQM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FNGS returned 18.21%/yr vs 20.13%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FNGS charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNGS achieves a 5.66% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 35.15% return.

FNGS

• 1D: -2.36%
• 1M: -3.57%
• YTD: 5.66%
• 6M: 4.04%
• 1Y: 17.25%
• 3Y*: 29.30%
• 5Y*: 18.21%
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: -6.20%
• 1M: 3.59%
• YTD: 35.15%
• 6M: 31.71%
• 1Y: 66.07%
• 3Y*: 35.52%
• 5Y*: 20.13%
• 10Y*: —

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

FNGS vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FNGS MicroSectors FANG+ ETN	5.66%	18.64%	51.99%	95.24%	-40.32%	16.96%	78.69%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	35.15%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	76.92%

Correlation

The correlation between FNGS and IQM is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.79
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2020	0.82

The correlation between FNGS and IQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.72 (1 year) to 0.83 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FNGS vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNGS	IQM
Technology	63.4%	68.4%
Communication Services	26.0%	2.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	2.9%
Financial Services	10.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	2.3%
Healthcare	-	1.0%
Industrials	-	17.1%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	3.2%

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: 21
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 21
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 19

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 70
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 61
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

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.

	FNGS	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.77	2.11	-1.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.18	2.52	-1.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.35	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.76	4.52	-3.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.12	14.13	-12.00

FNGS vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.77, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNGS 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

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 (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	-30.42%	+3.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-48.98%	-44.91%	-4.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.58%	-6.20%	-4.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.84%	-12.18%	+1.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.14%	4.69%	+3.45%

Volatility

FNGS vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) is 10.97%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 15.34%. 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	10.97%	15.34%	-4.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.01%	26.16%	-8.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.63%	31.47%	-8.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.25%	29.56%	+0.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.24%	31.10%	+0.14%

FNGS vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FNGS vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNGS nor IQM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNGS and IQM in my portfolio?

FNGS and IQM have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FNGS or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (15.34%) compared to FNGS (10.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FNGS dropped -48.98% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, FNGS or IQM?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 20.13% vs 18.21% for FNGS. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FNGS has been the lower-risk option at 10.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FNGS or IQM?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 20.13% return vs 18.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FNGS or IQM?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

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

FNGS and IQM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between FNGS and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: BMO and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for FNGS and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 0.77), 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.