IQM vs. RFDA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, IQM returned 20.13%/yr vs 12.89%/yr for RFDA. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IQM charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

IQM vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). 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 RFDA's 10.77% return.

IQM

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

RFDA

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 10.77%
• 6M: 9.90%
• 1Y: 26.59%
• 3Y*: 18.80%
• 5Y*: 12.89%
• 10Y*: 13.39%

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

IQM vs. RFDA - 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%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	10.77%	16.42%	20.12%	16.98%	-8.58%	25.94%	16.60%

Correlation

The correlation between IQM and RFDA is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.70
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2020	0.73

The correlation between IQM and RFDA shifts across timeframes, from 0.60 (1 year) to 0.73 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IQM vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IQM	RFDA
Technology	68.4%	21.1%
Industrials	17.1%	8.6%
Utilities	3.2%	4.8%
Consumer Cyclical	2.9%	7.4%
Energy	2.3%	11.7%
Communication Services	2.3%	8.3%
Healthcare	1.0%	9.7%
Basic Materials	-	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.0%
Financial Services	-	14.4%
Real Estate	-	4.9%

Return for Risk

IQM vs. RFDA — 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

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 81
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 78
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). 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	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	2.28	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.52	3.14	-0.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.42	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.52	4.90	-0.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.13	17.52	-3.40

IQM vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IQM Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is comparable to the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IQM and RFDA, 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. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IQM drawdown since its inception was -44.91%, which is greater than RFDA's maximum drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IQM and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	IQM	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.91%	-34.60%	-10.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.71%	-5.45%	-9.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.42%	-19.35%	-11.07%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.91%	-19.35%	-25.56%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.20%	-1.67%	-4.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.18%	-3.73%	-8.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.69%	1.52%	+3.17%

Volatility

IQM vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a higher volatility of 15.34% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 3.29%. This indicates that IQM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RFDA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IQM	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.34%	3.29%	+12.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.16%	8.77%	+17.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.47%	11.72%	+19.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.56%	15.75%	+13.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.10%	16.87%	+14.23%

IQM vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

IQM has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

IQM vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RFDA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.80%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
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%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.80%	1.89%	2.23%	2.68%	3.57%	1.44%	1.62%	1.87%	2.44%	1.90%	0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IQM and RFDA in my portfolio?

IQM and RFDA have a correlation of 0.60, 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 RFDA?

IQM has higher volatility (15.34%) compared to RFDA (3.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IQM dropped -44.91% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, IQM or RFDA?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 20.13% vs 12.89% for RFDA. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 3.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IQM or RFDA?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 20.13% return vs 12.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IQM or RFDA?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.

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

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.80%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between IQM and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for IQM and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 2.11), 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.