IMCG vs. QMOM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IMCG (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and QMOM (Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IMCG is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index, while QMOM is a Momentum fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. IMCG is passively managed, while QMOM is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, IMCG returned 14.46%/yr vs 13.78%/yr for QMOM. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IMCG charges 0.06%/yr vs 0.28%/yr for QMOM.

Performance

IMCG vs. QMOM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) and Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF (QMOM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMCG achieves a 20.64% return, which is significantly lower than QMOM's 24.29% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IMCG having a 14.46% annualized return and QMOM not far behind at 13.78%.

IMCG

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: 7.37%
• YTD: 20.64%
• 6M: 18.66%
• 1Y: 23.93%
• 3Y*: 19.24%
• 5Y*: 8.72%
• 10Y*: 14.46%

QMOM

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 4.40%
• YTD: 24.29%
• 6M: 24.93%
• 1Y: 30.10%
• 3Y*: 23.16%
• 5Y*: 11.48%
• 10Y*: 13.78%

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

IMCG vs. QMOM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IMCG iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF	20.64%	6.55%	18.14%	20.73%	-25.79%	15.39%	45.64%	35.70%	-3.68%	25.57%
QMOM Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF	24.29%	2.36%	30.43%	9.50%	-6.99%	-4.06%	61.94%	28.39%	-11.75%	15.92%

Correlation

The correlation between IMCG and QMOM 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 5, 2016	0.79

The correlation between IMCG and QMOM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

IMCG vs. QMOM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IMCG	QMOM
Technology	30.4%	23.9%
Industrials	26.6%	37.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	7.4%
Financial Services	9.1%	1.9%
Healthcare	7.4%	8.9%
Basic Materials	4.5%	9.0%
Real Estate	3.4%	-
Utilities	2.7%	2.0%
Communication Services	2.6%	4.2%
Energy	2.1%	5.5%
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	1.6%

Return for Risk

IMCG vs. QMOM — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMCG

IMCG Risk / Return Rank: 47
IMCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
IMCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
IMCG Omega Ratio Rank: 43
IMCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
IMCG Martin Ratio Rank: 54

QMOM

QMOM Risk / Return Rank: 42
QMOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
QMOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
QMOM Omega Ratio Rank: 37
QMOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
QMOM Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

IMCG vs. QMOM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) and Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF (QMOM). 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.

	IMCG	QMOM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.55	1.30	+0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.23	1.84	+0.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.24	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.36	2.39	-0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.19	8.74	+0.46
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IMCG vs. QMOM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is comparable to the QMOM Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMCG and QMOM, 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

	IMCG	QMOM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.55	1.30	+0.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.43	0.48	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71	0.52	+0.19
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.51	+0.03

Drawdowns

IMCG vs. QMOM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMCG drawdown since its inception was -58.96%, which is greater than QMOM's maximum drawdown of -39.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMCG and QMOM.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMCG	QMOM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.96%	-39.13%	-19.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.17%	-12.65%	+2.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.92%	-26.46%	+4.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.08%	-26.82%	-8.26%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.08%	-39.13%	+4.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.66%	+0.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.22%	-12.91%	+3.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.61%	3.45%	-0.84%

Volatility

IMCG vs. QMOM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) is 4.53%, while Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF (QMOM) has a volatility of 8.27%. This indicates that IMCG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QMOM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMCG	QMOM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.53%	8.27%	-3.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.54%	19.79%	-7.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.50%	23.30%	-7.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.16%	24.19%	-4.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.51%	26.48%	-5.97%

IMCG vs. QMOM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMCG has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than QMOM's 0.28% expense ratio.

Dividends

IMCG vs. QMOM - Dividend Comparison

IMCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.65%, more than QMOM's 0.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IMCG iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.65%	0.78%	0.78%	0.85%	0.91%	0.41%	0.09%	0.30%	0.35%	0.45%	0.52%	0.38%
QMOM Alpha Architect U.S. Quantitative Momentum ETF	0.44%	0.54%	1.40%	0.87%	1.59%	0.12%	0.08%	0.01%	0.05%	0.13%	0.34%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMCG and QMOM in my portfolio?

IMCG and QMOM 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 is riskier, IMCG or QMOM?

QMOM has higher volatility (8.27%) compared to IMCG (4.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMCG dropped -58.96% vs QMOM's -39.13%.

Which ETF is better, IMCG or QMOM?

On 10-year performance, IMCG leads with 14.46% vs 13.78% for QMOM. On fees, IMCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, IMCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IMCG or QMOM?

Over the 10-year period, IMCG has performed better with a 14.46% return vs 13.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IMCG or QMOM?

IMCG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for QMOM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IMCG or QMOM?

IMCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.65%, compared with 0.44% for QMOM.

What is the main difference between IMCG and QMOM?

IMCG is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while QMOM is Momentum. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for IMCG and 0.28% for QMOM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IMCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.55 vs 1.30), 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.