IWLG vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IWLG (NYLI Winslow 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, IWLG returned 23.30%/yr vs 37.11%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.

Performance

IWLG vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWLG achieves a 5.65% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 38.49% return.

IWLG

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 5.14%
• YTD: 5.65%
• 6M: 4.68%
• 1Y: 16.46%
• 3Y*: 23.30%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: -1.20%
• 1M: 9.28%
• YTD: 38.49%
• 6M: 34.62%
• 1Y: 72.20%
• 3Y*: 37.11%
• 5Y*: 21.93%
• 10Y*: —

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

IWLG vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
IWLG NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF	5.65%	14.73%	31.47%	43.25%	-0.01%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	38.49%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	3.39%

Correlation

The correlation between IWLG and IQM is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 24, 2022	0.89

The correlation between IWLG and IQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWLG vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWLG	IQM
Technology	50.2%	65.9%
Communication Services	16.2%	2.1%
Industrials	11.4%	19.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	4.1%
Healthcare	5.6%	1.1%
Financial Services	4.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	-
Utilities	1.1%	3.3%
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	-	2.7%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

IWLG vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWLG

IWLG Risk / Return Rank: 25
IWLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
IWLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
IWLG Omega Ratio Rank: 27
IWLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
IWLG Martin Ratio Rank: 22

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 77
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 70
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

IWLG vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG) 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.

	IWLG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.01	2.57	-1.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.46	3.01	-1.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.41	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.85	4.94	-4.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.59	16.15	-13.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWLG vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.01, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWLG and IQM, 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

	IWLG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.01	2.57	-1.55
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.76	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.12	0.95	+0.16

Drawdowns

IWLG vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWLG drawdown since its inception was -23.19%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWLG and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWLG	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.19%	-44.91%	+21.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.45%	-14.71%	-4.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.19%	-30.42%	+7.23%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.34%	-1.57%	+0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.57%	-12.24%	+7.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.38%	4.49%	+1.89%

Volatility

IWLG vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF (IWLG) is 4.47%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.33%. This indicates that IWLG 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.

Volatility by Period

	IWLG	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.47%	9.33%	-4.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.37%	22.97%	-10.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.31%	28.28%	-11.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.95%	28.90%	-7.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.95%	30.71%	-9.76%

IWLG vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both IWLG and IQM have an expense ratio of 0.50%.

Dividends

IWLG vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWLG 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%
IWLG NYLI Winslow Large Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	1.34%	0.01%	0.05%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWLG and IQM in my portfolio?

IWLG and IQM have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWLG or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (9.33%) compared to IWLG (4.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWLG dropped -23.19% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, IWLG or IQM?

On 3-year performance, IQM leads with 37.11% vs 23.30% for IWLG. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, IWLG has been the lower-risk option at 4.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWLG or IQM?

Over the 3-year period, IQM has performed better with a 37.11% return vs 23.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWLG or IQM?

IWLG and IQM have the same expense ratio: 0.50% per year.

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

IWLG and IQM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between IWLG and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: NYLI and Franklin Templeton.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs 1.01), 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.