FSGS vs. SAWS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FSGS (First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF) and SAWS (AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. FSGS is passively managed, while SAWS is actively managed. Over the past year, FSGS returned 4.81% vs 19.24% for SAWS. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FSGS charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for SAWS.

Performance

FSGS vs. SAWS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) and AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FSGS achieves a 1.27% return, which is significantly lower than SAWS's 11.45% return.

FSGS

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 0.83%
• YTD: 1.27%
• 6M: 0.20%
• 1Y: 4.81%
• 3Y*: 7.06%
• 5Y*: 2.19%
• 10Y*: —

SAWS

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: 0.03%
• YTD: 11.45%
• 6M: 12.55%
• 1Y: 19.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FSGS vs. SAWS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	1.27%	2.41%	-0.93%
SAWS AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF	11.45%	7.26%	3.52%

Correlation

The correlation between FSGS and SAWS 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2024	0.85

The correlation between FSGS and SAWS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

FSGS vs. SAWS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FSGS	SAWS
Industrials	22.0%	27.7%
Financial Services	19.5%	14.2%
Technology	18.8%	15.1%
Healthcare	16.7%	18.3%
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	9.1%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	7.5%
Energy	4.2%	4.6%
Communication Services	3.1%	-
Basic Materials	1.7%	3.6%
Real Estate	0.9%	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FSGS vs. SAWS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FSGS

FSGS Risk / Return Rank: 14
FSGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
FSGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
FSGS Omega Ratio Rank: 13
FSGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
FSGS Martin Ratio Rank: 15

SAWS

SAWS Risk / Return Rank: 34
SAWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
SAWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
SAWS Omega Ratio Rank: 29
SAWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
SAWS Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

FSGS vs. SAWS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) and AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS). 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.

	FSGS	SAWS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.32	1.07	-0.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.57	1.67	-1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.19	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.43	1.89	-1.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.21	6.12	-4.91
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FSGS vs. SAWS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FSGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.32, which is lower than the SAWS Sharpe Ratio of 1.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FSGS and SAWS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FSGS	SAWS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32	1.07	-0.75
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.11	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.30	0.59	-0.28

Drawdowns

FSGS vs. SAWS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FSGS drawdown since its inception was -43.26%, which is greater than SAWS's maximum drawdown of -22.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FSGS and SAWS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FSGS	SAWS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.26%	-22.04%	-21.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.31%	-10.23%	-1.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.08%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.08%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.73%	-2.52%	-2.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.03%	-5.61%	-2.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.97%	3.15%	+0.82%

Volatility

FSGS vs. SAWS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) is 3.74%, while AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS) has a volatility of 5.16%. This indicates that FSGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SAWS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FSGS	SAWS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.74%	5.16%	-1.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.73%	13.70%	-2.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.24%	18.14%	-2.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.14%	21.03%	-0.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.81%	21.03%	+1.78%

FSGS vs. SAWS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FSGS has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than SAWS's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

FSGS vs. SAWS - Dividend Comparison

FSGS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while SAWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.02%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	0.00%	0.00%	2.71%	2.29%	1.95%	1.35%	1.32%	1.77%	2.13%	1.15%
SAWS AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF	0.02%	0.02%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FSGS and SAWS in my portfolio?

FSGS and SAWS 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, FSGS or SAWS?

SAWS has higher volatility (5.16%) compared to FSGS (3.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FSGS dropped -43.26% vs SAWS's -22.04%.

Which ETF is better, FSGS or SAWS?

On 1-year performance, SAWS leads with 19.24% vs 4.81% for FSGS. On fees, SAWS is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, FSGS has been the lower-risk option at 3.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FSGS or SAWS?

Over the 1-year period, SAWS has performed better with a 19.24% return vs 4.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FSGS or SAWS?

SAWS is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FSGS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FSGS or SAWS?

SAWS has the higher dividend yield at 0.02%, compared with 0.00% for FSGS.

What is the main difference between FSGS and SAWS?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and AAM. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FSGS and 0.55% for SAWS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SAWS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.07 vs 0.32), 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.