FSGS vs. TMFS

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

FSGS (First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF) and TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. FSGS is passively managed, while TMFS is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FSGS returned 4.57%/yr vs -0.79%/yr for TMFS. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FSGS charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for TMFS.

Performance

FSGS vs. TMFS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) and Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FSGS achieves a 6.52% return, which is significantly higher than TMFS's 3.23% return.

FSGS

• 1D: 1.12%
• 1M: 3.63%
• 6M: 1.61%
• YTD: 6.52%
• 1Y: 8.98%
• 3Y*: 7.13%
• 5Y*: 4.57%
• 10Y*: —

TMFS

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: 4.04%
• 6M: -0.74%
• YTD: 3.23%
• 1Y: 2.85%
• 3Y*: 7.00%
• 5Y*: -0.79%
• 10Y*: —

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

FSGS vs. TMFS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	6.52%	2.41%	6.38%	15.98%	-13.17%	25.56%	10.26%	21.31%	-10.26%
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF	3.23%	-1.59%	15.41%	25.40%	-33.15%	-2.38%	58.52%	40.19%	-6.14%

Correlation

The correlation between FSGS and TMFS is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 30, 2018	0.74

The correlation between FSGS and TMFS shifts across timeframes, from 0.74 (all time) to 0.86 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FSGS vs. TMFS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FSGS	TMFS
Financial Services	19.8%	13.2%
Industrials	19.8%	23.8%
Technology	18.8%	24.4%
Healthcare	16.8%	20.7%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	6.7%
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	0.0%
Energy	4.0%	3.1%
Communication Services	3.0%	-
Basic Materials	2.0%	2.5%
Real Estate	1.0%	5.5%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FSGS vs. TMFS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FSGS

FSGS Risk / Return Rank: 21
FSGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
FSGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FSGS Omega Ratio Rank: 19
FSGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
FSGS Martin Ratio Rank: 23

TMFS

TMFS Risk / Return Rank: 12
TMFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
TMFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
TMFS Omega Ratio Rank: 11
TMFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
TMFS Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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. TMFS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) and Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS). 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.

	FSGS	TMFS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.60	0.14	+0.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.96	0.37	+0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.04	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.80	0.18	+0.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.24	0.50	+1.74

FSGS vs. TMFS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FSGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.60, which is higher than the TMFS Sharpe Ratio of 0.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FSGS and TMFS, 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

FSGS vs. TMFS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FSGS drawdown since its inception was -43.26%, smaller than the maximum TMFS drawdown of -48.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FSGS and TMFS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FSGS	TMFS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.26%	-48.79%	+5.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.31%	-15.73%	+4.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.08%	-27.05%	+2.97%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.08%	-45.68%	+21.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.20%	-16.36%	+16.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.96%	-19.44%	+11.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.03%	5.74%	-1.71%

Volatility

FSGS vs. TMFS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) is 3.74%, while Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) has a volatility of 4.85%. This indicates that FSGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TMFS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FSGS	TMFS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.74%	4.85%	-1.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.98%	14.02%	-3.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.13%	19.78%	-4.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.03%	23.03%	-3.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.70%	25.43%	-2.73%

FSGS vs. TMFS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FSGS has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than TMFS's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

FSGS vs. TMFS - Dividend Comparison

FSGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.03%, while TMFS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	0.03%	0.00%	2.71%	2.29%	1.95%	1.35%	1.32%	1.77%	2.13%	1.15%
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.34%	2.37%	5.57%	2.65%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FSGS and TMFS in my portfolio?

FSGS and TMFS have a correlation of 0.85, 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 TMFS?

TMFS has higher volatility (4.85%) compared to FSGS (3.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FSGS dropped -43.26% vs TMFS's -48.79%.

Which ETF is better, FSGS or TMFS?

On 5-year performance, FSGS leads with 4.57% vs -0.79% for TMFS. On fees, FSGS is cheaper at 0.60% 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 TMFS?

Over the 5-year period, FSGS has performed better with a 4.57% return vs -0.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FSGS or TMFS?

FSGS is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFS.

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

FSGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.03%, compared with 0.00% for TMFS.

What is the main difference between FSGS and TMFS?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Motley Fool. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FSGS and 0.85% for TMFS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FSGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.60 vs 0.14), 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.