IWFG vs. IQM
IWFG (NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, IWFG returned 23.02%/yr vs 37.62%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IWFG charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.
Performance
IWFG vs. IQM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IWFG achieves a 2.08% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 40.18% return.
IWFG
- 1D
- -1.30%
- 1M
- 4.41%
- YTD
- 2.08%
- 6M
- 1.13%
- 1Y
- 11.87%
- 3Y*
- 23.02%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IQM
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- 11.94%
- YTD
- 40.18%
- 6M
- 38.57%
- 1Y
- 75.07%
- 3Y*
- 37.62%
- 5Y*
- 22.22%
- 10Y*
- —
IWFG vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IWFG NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF | 2.08% | 14.33% | 37.56% | 38.40% | 3.75% |
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF | 40.18% | 30.76% | 31.03% | 41.06% | 3.39% |
Correlation
The correlation between IWFG and IQM is 0.79, 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 | 0.79 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.86 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 24, 2022 | 0.88 |
The correlation between IWFG and IQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.
IWFG vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IWFG
IQM
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Healthcare
Financial Services
-
Utilities
Basic Materials
-
-
Consumer Defensive
-
-
Energy
-
Real Estate
-
-
Technology
IWFG
IQM
Communication Services
IWFG
IQM
Consumer Cyclical
IWFG
IQM
Industrials
IWFG
IQM
Healthcare
IWFG
IQM
Financial Services
IWFG
IQM
-
Utilities
IWFG
IQM
Basic Materials
IWFG
-
IQM
-
Consumer Defensive
IWFG
-
IQM
-
Energy
IWFG
-
IQM
Real Estate
IWFG
-
IQM
-
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
IWFG vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank
IWFG
IQM
IWFG vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) 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.
| IWFG | IQM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.95 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.03 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.13 | 1.43 | -0.29 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.59 | 5.13 | -4.54 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.73 | 16.79 | -15.06 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IWFG | IQM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.72 | 2.67 | -1.95 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.77 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.16 | 0.96 | +0.20 |
Drawdowns
IWFG vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IWFG drawdown since its inception was -21.97%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFG and IQM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IWFG | IQM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.97% | -44.91% | +22.94% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -20.20% | -14.71% | -5.49% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.97% | -30.42% | +8.45% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -44.91% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.79% | -0.37% | -2.42% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.13% | -12.25% | +8.12% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.89% | 4.49% | +2.40% |
Volatility
IWFG vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) is 3.85%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.20%. This indicates that IWFG 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IWFG | IQM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.85% | 9.20% | -5.35% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.59% | 22.92% | -10.33% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.50% | 28.27% | -11.77% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.48% | 28.91% | -8.43% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.48% | 30.72% | -10.24% |
IWFG vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison
IWFG has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is lower than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
IWFG vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison
Neither IWFG nor IQM has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.17% | 0.01% |
IWFG NYLI Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 5.44% | 1.01% | 0.05% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IWFG and IQM have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IQM has higher volatility (9.20%) compared to IWFG (3.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWFG dropped -21.97% vs IQM's -44.91%.
On 3-year performance, IQM leads with 37.62% vs 23.02% for IWFG. On fees, IWFG is cheaper at 0.46% per year. On volatility, IWFG has been the lower-risk option at 3.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, IQM has performed better with a 37.62% return vs 23.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IWFG is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for IQM.
IWFG and IQM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: New York Life and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for IWFG and 0.50% for IQM.
IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 0.72), 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.
Find the right allocation for IWFG and IQM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer