IQM vs. IUSG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) and IUSG (iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. IQM is actively managed, while IUSG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IQM returned 20.13%/yr vs 13.77%/yr for IUSG. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IQM charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for IUSG.

Performance

IQM vs. IUSG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) and iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF (IUSG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IQM achieves a 35.15% return, which is significantly higher than IUSG's 9.19% return.

IQM

• 1D: -6.20%
• 1M: 3.59%
• YTD: 35.15%
• 6M: 31.71%
• 1Y: 66.07%
• 3Y*: 35.52%
• 5Y*: 20.13%
• 10Y*: —

IUSG

• 1D: -2.31%
• 1M: -1.86%
• YTD: 9.19%
• 6M: 7.87%
• 1Y: 26.96%
• 3Y*: 25.00%
• 5Y*: 13.77%
• 10Y*: 17.77%

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

IQM vs. IUSG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	35.15%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	76.92%
IUSG iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF	9.19%	21.23%	34.70%	29.28%	-28.81%	31.26%	33.43%

Correlation

The correlation between IQM and IUSG is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2020	0.89

The correlation between IQM and IUSG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

IQM vs. IUSG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IQM	IUSG
Technology	68.4%	50.8%
Industrials	17.1%	6.6%
Utilities	3.2%	1.1%
Consumer Cyclical	2.9%	8.4%
Energy	2.3%	0.3%
Communication Services	2.3%	15.2%
Healthcare	1.0%	6.4%
Basic Materials	-	0.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.2%
Financial Services	-	8.7%
Real Estate	-	0.8%

Return for Risk

IQM vs. IUSG — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

IUSG

IUSG Risk / Return Rank: 47
IUSG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
IUSG Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
IUSG Omega Ratio Rank: 45
IUSG Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
IUSG Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

IQM vs. IUSG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) and iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF (IUSG). 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.

	IQM	IUSG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	1.60	+0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.52	2.20	+0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.28	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.52	2.07	+2.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.13	8.45	+5.68

IQM vs. IUSG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IQM Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is higher than the IUSG Sharpe Ratio of 1.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IQM and IUSG, 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

IQM vs. IUSG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IQM drawdown since its inception was -44.91%, smaller than the maximum IUSG drawdown of -63.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IQM and IUSG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IQM	IUSG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.91%	-63.41%	+18.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.71%	-13.07%	-1.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.42%	-22.28%	-8.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.91%	-32.21%	-12.70%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.20%	-5.23%	-0.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.18%	-21.40%	+9.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.69%	3.20%	+1.49%

Volatility

IQM vs. IUSG - Volatility Comparison

Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a higher volatility of 15.34% compared to iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF (IUSG) at 7.16%. This indicates that IQM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IUSG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IQM	IUSG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.34%	7.16%	+8.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.16%	13.66%	+12.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.47%	16.92%	+14.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.56%	21.06%	+8.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.10%	20.48%	+10.62%

IQM vs. IUSG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IQM has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IUSG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

IQM vs. IUSG - Dividend Comparison

IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IUSG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.50%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	0.00%
IUSG iShares Core S&P U.S. Growth ETF	0.50%	0.53%	0.59%	1.12%	1.07%	0.59%	0.93%	1.64%	1.32%	1.28%	1.48%	1.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IQM and IUSG in my portfolio?

IQM and IUSG have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IQM or IUSG?

IQM has higher volatility (15.34%) compared to IUSG (7.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IQM dropped -44.91% vs IUSG's -63.41%.

Which ETF is better, IQM or IUSG?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 20.13% vs 13.77% for IUSG. On fees, IUSG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, IUSG has been the lower-risk option at 7.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IQM or IUSG?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 20.13% return vs 13.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IQM or IUSG?

IUSG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for IQM.

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

IUSG has the higher dividend yield at 0.50%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between IQM and IUSG?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for IQM and 0.04% for IUSG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 1.60), 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.