FTGS vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FTGS (First Trust Growth Strength ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FTGS is passively managed, while IQM is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FTGS returned 18.88%/yr vs 37.62%/yr for IQM. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FTGS charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

FTGS vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) 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, FTGS achieves a 5.22% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 40.18% return.

FTGS

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: 3.43%
• YTD: 5.22%
• 6M: 5.10%
• 1Y: 12.55%
• 3Y*: 18.88%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 11.94%
• YTD: 40.18%
• 6M: 38.57%
• 1Y: 75.07%
• 3Y*: 37.62%
• 5Y*: 22.22%
• 10Y*: —

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

FTGS vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FTGS First Trust Growth Strength ETF	5.22%	12.78%	15.76%	33.69%	1.09%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	40.18%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	1.98%

Correlation

The correlation between FTGS and IQM is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2022	0.80

The correlation between FTGS and IQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (1 year) to 0.80 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FTGS vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FTGS	IQM
Technology	30.6%	65.9%
Healthcare	17.6%	1.1%
Financial Services	16.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	13.6%	4.1%
Industrials	12.3%	19.9%
Communication Services	5.7%	2.1%
Energy	4.8%	2.7%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	-
Basic Materials	1.9%	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

FTGS vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FTGS

FTGS Risk / Return Rank: 27
FTGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
FTGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
FTGS Omega Ratio Rank: 24
FTGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FTGS Martin Ratio Rank: 31

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 78
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

FTGS vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) 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.

	FTGS	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.94	2.67	-1.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.41	3.11	-1.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.43	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.33	5.13	-3.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.51	16.79	-12.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FTGS vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FTGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.94, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FTGS 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FTGS	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.94	2.67	-1.73
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.77	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.10	0.96	+0.14

Drawdowns

FTGS vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FTGS drawdown since its inception was -19.99%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTGS and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FTGS	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.99%	-44.91%	+24.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.47%	-14.71%	+5.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.99%	-30.42%	+10.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.66%	-0.37%	-1.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.75%	-12.25%	+9.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.79%	4.49%	-1.70%

Volatility

FTGS vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) is 3.33%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.20%. This indicates that FTGS 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

	FTGS	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.33%	9.20%	-5.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.27%	22.92%	-12.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.45%	28.27%	-14.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.15%	28.91%	-11.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.15%	30.72%	-13.57%

FTGS vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FTGS has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

FTGS vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

FTGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FTGS First Trust Growth Strength ETF	0.09%	0.16%	0.39%	0.62%	0.21%	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 FTGS and IQM in my portfolio?

FTGS and IQM have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FTGS or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (9.20%) compared to FTGS (3.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FTGS dropped -19.99% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, FTGS or IQM?

On 3-year performance, IQM leads with 37.62% vs 18.88% for FTGS. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FTGS has been the lower-risk option at 3.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FTGS or IQM?

Over the 3-year period, IQM has performed better with a 37.62% return vs 18.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FTGS or IQM?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FTGS.

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

FTGS has the higher dividend yield at 0.09%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between FTGS and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FTGS and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 0.94), 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.