GVIP vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GVIP (Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. GVIP is passively managed, while IQM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, GVIP returned 12.53%/yr vs 20.13%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GVIP charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

GVIP vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) 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, GVIP achieves a 16.34% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 35.15% return.

GVIP

• 1D: -6.01%
• 1M: 3.42%
• YTD: 16.34%
• 6M: 15.67%
• 1Y: 35.53%
• 3Y*: 29.99%
• 5Y*: 12.53%
• 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)

GVIP vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GVIP Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF	16.34%	25.27%	29.82%	39.15%	-31.95%	11.86%	43.94%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	35.15%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	76.92%

Correlation

The correlation between GVIP and IQM is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2020	0.87

The correlation between GVIP and IQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

GVIP vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GVIP	IQM
Technology	34.8%	68.4%
Financial Services	16.0%	-
Communication Services	13.7%	2.3%
Industrials	11.0%	17.1%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	2.9%
Healthcare	8.2%	1.0%
Utilities	6.3%	3.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	2.3%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

GVIP vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GVIP

GVIP Risk / Return Rank: 54
GVIP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
GVIP Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
GVIP Omega Ratio Rank: 51
GVIP Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
GVIP Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

GVIP vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) 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.

	GVIP	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.70	2.11	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.26	2.52	-0.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.35	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.61	4.52	-1.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.04	14.13	-3.08

GVIP vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GVIP Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is comparable to the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GVIP 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

GVIP vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GVIP drawdown since its inception was -37.09%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GVIP and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GVIP	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.09%	-44.91%	+7.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.67%	-14.71%	+1.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.29%	-30.42%	+7.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.09%	-44.91%	+7.82%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.01%	-6.20%	+0.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.56%	-12.18%	+4.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.23%	4.69%	-1.46%

Volatility

GVIP vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF (GVIP) is 11.43%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 15.34%. This indicates that GVIP 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

	GVIP	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.43%	15.34%	-3.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.87%	26.16%	-8.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.01%	31.47%	-10.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.83%	29.56%	-7.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.87%	31.10%	-9.23%

GVIP vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

GVIP vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

GVIP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.29%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
GVIP Goldman Sachs Hedge Industry VIP ETF	0.29%	0.34%	0.29%	0.77%	0.02%	0.00%	0.12%	0.77%	0.44%	0.45%	0.08%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.17%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GVIP and IQM in my portfolio?

GVIP and IQM have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GVIP or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (15.34%) compared to GVIP (11.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GVIP dropped -37.09% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, GVIP or IQM?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 20.13% vs 12.53% for GVIP. On fees, GVIP is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, GVIP has been the lower-risk option at 11.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GVIP or IQM?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 20.13% return vs 12.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GVIP or IQM?

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

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

GVIP has the higher dividend yield at 0.29%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between GVIP and IQM?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 1.70), 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.