HQGO vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

HQGO (Hartford US Quality Growth ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. HQGO is passively managed, while IQM is actively managed. Over the past year, HQGO returned 19.84% vs 65.03% for IQM. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. HQGO charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

HQGO vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Hartford US Quality Growth ETF (HQGO) 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, HQGO achieves a 6.07% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 37.46% return.

HQGO

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: -2.38%
• YTD: 6.07%
• 6M: 4.52%
• 1Y: 19.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: 2.34%
• 1M: 2.75%
• YTD: 37.46%
• 6M: 33.95%
• 1Y: 65.03%
• 3Y*: 36.57%
• 5Y*: 20.55%
• 10Y*: —

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

HQGO vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
HQGO Hartford US Quality Growth ETF	6.07%	15.15%	25.09%	5.10%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	37.46%	30.76%	31.03%	7.52%

Correlation

The correlation between HQGO and IQM is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 6, 2023	0.83

The correlation between HQGO and IQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

HQGO vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HQGO	IQM
Technology	42.1%	68.4%
Consumer Cyclical	13.5%	2.9%
Communication Services	13.1%	2.3%
Healthcare	9.2%	1.0%
Industrials	6.1%	17.1%
Financial Services	6.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.9%	-
Energy	3.6%	2.3%
Basic Materials	1.8%	-
Real Estate	0.6%	-
Utilities	0.1%	3.2%

Return for Risk

HQGO vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

HQGO

HQGO Risk / Return Rank: 45
HQGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
HQGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
HQGO Omega Ratio Rank: 43
HQGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
HQGO Martin Ratio Rank: 50

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 74
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 66
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

HQGO vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Hartford US Quality Growth ETF (HQGO) 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.

	HQGO	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.44	2.08	-0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.00	2.49	-0.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.35	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.92	4.44	-2.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.51	13.82	-6.31

HQGO vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HQGO Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HQGO 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

HQGO vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HQGO drawdown since its inception was -20.85%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HQGO and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	HQGO	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.85%	-44.91%	+24.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.40%	-14.71%	+4.31%
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	-4.53%	-4.60%	+0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.54%	-12.17%	+9.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.65%	4.72%	-2.07%

Volatility

HQGO vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Hartford US Quality Growth ETF (HQGO) is 5.05%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 15.32%. This indicates that HQGO 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

	HQGO	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.05%	15.32%	-10.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.73%	26.06%	-15.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.89%	31.48%	-17.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.05%	29.58%	-12.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.05%	31.09%	-14.04%

HQGO vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

HQGO has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is lower than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

HQGO vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

HQGO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.47%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
HQGO Hartford US Quality Growth ETF	0.47%	0.51%	0.52%	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 HQGO and IQM in my portfolio?

HQGO and IQM have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HQGO or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (15.32%) compared to HQGO (5.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HQGO dropped -20.85% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, HQGO or IQM?

On 1-year performance, IQM leads with 65.03% vs 19.84% for HQGO. On fees, HQGO is cheaper at 0.34% per year. On volatility, HQGO has been the lower-risk option at 5.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HQGO or IQM?

Over the 1-year period, IQM has performed better with a 65.03% return vs 19.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HQGO or IQM?

HQGO is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for IQM.

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

HQGO has the higher dividend yield at 0.47%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between HQGO and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Hartford and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for HQGO and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 1.44), 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.