GSGO vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

GSGO (Goldman Sachs Growth Opportunities ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GSGO charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

GSGO vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Growth Opportunities ETF (GSGO) 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, GSGO achieves a 8.99% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 27.43% return.

GSGO

• 1D: -3.46%
• 1M: 2.75%
• YTD: 8.99%
• 6M: 7.80%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: -7.99%
• 1M: -1.95%
• YTD: 27.43%
• 6M: 24.00%
• 1Y: 60.81%
• 3Y*: 33.28%
• 5Y*: 19.91%
• 10Y*: —

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

GSGO vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GSGO Goldman Sachs Growth Opportunities ETF	8.99%	1.36%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	27.43%	2.96%

Correlation

The correlation between GSGO and IQM 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 18, 2025	0.81

Return for Risk

GSGO vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 67
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 59
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

GSGO vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Growth Opportunities ETF (GSGO) 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GSGO	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.08	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.69	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.09	0.89	+0.20

Drawdowns

GSGO vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSGO drawdown since its inception was -13.88%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSGO and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSGO	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.88%	-44.91%	+31.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-14.71%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-30.42%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.79%	-9.44%	+5.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.94%	-12.24%	+9.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	4.52%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GSGO	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	12.53%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	24.51%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.46%	29.45%	-10.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.46%	29.11%	-10.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.46%	30.87%	-12.41%

GSGO vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSGO has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

GSGO vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

Neither GSGO nor IQM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GSGO Goldman Sachs Growth Opportunities ETF	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 GSGO and IQM in my portfolio?

GSGO and IQM 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 ETF is better, GSGO or IQM?

On fees, GSGO is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSGO or IQM?

GSGO is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for IQM.

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

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

What is the main difference between GSGO and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GSGO and 0.50% for IQM.