IMTM vs. FNDF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IMTM (iShares MSCI Intl Momentum Factor ETF) and FNDF (Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IMTM is a Momentum fund tracking the MSCI World ex USA Momentum, while FNDF is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the Russell Fundamental Developed ex-U.S. Large Company Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IMTM returned 10.29%/yr vs 11.93%/yr for FNDF. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IMTM charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FNDF.

Performance

IMTM vs. FNDF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Intl Momentum Factor ETF (IMTM) and Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF (FNDF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMTM achieves a 11.05% return, which is significantly lower than FNDF's 21.21% return. Over the past 10 years, IMTM has underperformed FNDF with an annualized return of 10.29%, while FNDF has yielded a comparatively higher 11.93% annualized return.

IMTM

• 1D: -0.39%
• 1M: 4.43%
• YTD: 11.05%
• 6M: 14.04%
• 1Y: 23.92%
• 3Y*: 21.55%
• 5Y*: 9.00%
• 10Y*: 10.29%

FNDF

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: 6.97%
• YTD: 21.21%
• 6M: 24.72%
• 1Y: 44.71%
• 3Y*: 24.10%
• 5Y*: 13.35%
• 10Y*: 11.93%

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

IMTM vs. FNDF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IMTM iShares MSCI Intl Momentum Factor ETF	11.05%	34.50%	12.17%	13.89%	-16.81%	3.50%	22.17%	24.52%	-14.31%	25.46%
FNDF Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF	21.21%	40.99%	2.29%	20.22%	-7.78%	14.97%	3.61%	18.46%	-14.21%	23.98%

Correlation

The correlation between IMTM and FNDF is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.91
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2015	0.80

The correlation between IMTM and FNDF shifts across timeframes, from 0.80 (all time) to 0.91 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IMTM vs. FNDF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IMTM	FNDF
Financial Services	29.6%	16.7%
Industrials	17.5%	15.9%
Technology	11.4%	11.1%
Energy	9.4%	12.3%
Basic Materials	9.3%	11.3%
Healthcare	9.0%	5.5%
Utilities	6.4%	3.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	6.9%
Communication Services	1.9%	4.9%
Consumer Cyclical	1.8%	10.7%
Real Estate	1.2%	0.9%

Return for Risk

IMTM vs. FNDF — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMTM

IMTM Risk / Return Rank: 40
IMTM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
IMTM Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
IMTM Omega Ratio Rank: 39
IMTM Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
IMTM Martin Ratio Rank: 45

FNDF

FNDF Risk / Return Rank: 84
FNDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
FNDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
FNDF Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FNDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
FNDF Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

IMTM vs. FNDF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Intl Momentum Factor ETF (IMTM) and Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF (FNDF). 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.

	IMTM	FNDF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	2.99	-1.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.07	3.89	-1.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.53	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.87	4.24	-2.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.46	16.19	-8.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IMTM vs. FNDF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMTM Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is lower than the FNDF Sharpe Ratio of 2.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMTM and FNDF, 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

	IMTM	FNDF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.41	2.99	-1.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51	0.83	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.58	0.68	-0.09
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.50	0.54	-0.03

Drawdowns

IMTM vs. FNDF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMTM drawdown since its inception was -32.66%, smaller than the maximum FNDF drawdown of -40.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMTM and FNDF.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMTM	FNDF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.66%	-40.14%	+7.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.85%	-10.60%	-2.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.85%	-13.89%	+1.04%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.66%	-25.56%	-7.10%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.66%	-40.14%	+7.48%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.39%	-0.67%	+0.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.45%	-7.64%	+0.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.21%	2.77%	+0.44%

Volatility

IMTM vs. FNDF - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Intl Momentum Factor ETF (IMTM) and Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF (FNDF) have volatilities of 5.48% and 5.26%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMTM	FNDF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.48%	5.26%	+0.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.98%	12.53%	+2.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.04%	15.06%	+1.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.64%	16.18%	+1.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.64%	17.67%	-0.03%

IMTM vs. FNDF - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMTM has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than FNDF's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

IMTM vs. FNDF - Dividend Comparison

IMTM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.23%, more than FNDF's 2.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FNDF Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF	2.84%	3.44%	4.01%	3.41%	3.10%	3.54%	2.17%	3.20%	3.47%	2.32%	2.42%	2.08%
IMTM iShares MSCI Intl Momentum Factor ETF	4.23%	4.70%	2.93%	2.29%	2.68%	2.51%	0.97%	2.13%	2.36%	1.92%	2.75%	1.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMTM and FNDF in my portfolio?

IMTM and FNDF have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IMTM or FNDF?

IMTM has higher volatility (5.48%) compared to FNDF (5.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMTM dropped -32.66% vs FNDF's -40.14%.

Which ETF is better, IMTM or FNDF?

On 10-year performance, FNDF leads with 11.93% vs 10.29% for IMTM. On fees, FNDF is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, FNDF has been the lower-risk option at 5.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IMTM or FNDF?

Over the 10-year period, FNDF has performed better with a 11.93% return vs 10.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IMTM or FNDF?

FNDF is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for IMTM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IMTM or FNDF?

IMTM has the higher dividend yield at 4.23%, compared with 2.84% for FNDF.

What is the main difference between IMTM and FNDF?

IMTM is categorized as Momentum, while FNDF is Foreign Large Cap Equities. IMTM tracks MSCI World ex USA Momentum, while FNDF tracks Russell Fundamental Developed ex-U.S. Large Company Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for IMTM and 0.25% for FNDF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.99 vs 1.41), 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.