LCLG vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LCLG (Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, LCLG returned 30.13%/yr vs 37.62%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LCLG charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

LCLG vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) 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, LCLG achieves a 19.42% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 40.18% return.

LCLG

• 1D: 0.47%
• 1M: 11.82%
• YTD: 19.42%
• 6M: 17.86%
• 1Y: 39.05%
• 3Y*: 30.13%
• 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*: —

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

LCLG vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
LCLG Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF	19.42%	18.15%	32.04%	35.45%	-8.58%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	40.18%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-10.80%

Correlation

The correlation between LCLG and IQM is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2022	0.87

The correlation between LCLG and IQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

LCLG vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LCLG	IQM
Technology	35.1%	65.9%
Communication Services	19.4%	2.1%
Industrials	17.6%	19.9%
Consumer Cyclical	16.4%	4.1%
Financial Services	6.6%	-
Healthcare	2.8%	1.1%
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.0%	-
Energy	-	2.7%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

LCLG vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCLG

LCLG Risk / Return Rank: 61
LCLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
LCLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
LCLG Omega Ratio Rank: 60
LCLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
LCLG Martin Ratio Rank: 64

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 78
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

LCLG vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) 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.

	LCLG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	2.67	-0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.82	3.11	-0.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.43	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.85	5.13	-2.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.52	16.79	-5.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LCLG vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is comparable to the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCLG 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

	LCLG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.11	2.67	-0.56
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.77	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.14	0.96	+0.18

Drawdowns

LCLG vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCLG drawdown since its inception was -25.79%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCLG and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCLG	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.79%	-44.91%	+19.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.75%	-14.71%	+0.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.79%	-30.42%	+4.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.37%	+0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.48%	-12.25%	+7.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.40%	4.49%	-1.09%

Volatility

LCLG vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) is 5.85%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.20%. This indicates that LCLG 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

	LCLG	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.85%	9.20%	-3.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.77%	22.92%	-8.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.60%	28.27%	-9.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.60%	28.91%	-7.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.60%	30.72%	-9.12%

LCLG vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCLG has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCLG vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

Neither LCLG 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%
LCLG Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.06%	0.97%	2.03%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCLG and IQM in my portfolio?

LCLG and IQM have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LCLG or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (9.20%) compared to LCLG (5.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCLG dropped -25.79% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, LCLG or IQM?

On 3-year performance, IQM leads with 37.62% vs 30.13% for LCLG. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, LCLG has been the lower-risk option at 5.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCLG or IQM?

Over the 3-year period, IQM has performed better with a 37.62% return vs 30.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCLG or IQM?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for LCLG.

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

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

What is the main difference between LCLG and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Logan and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for LCLG and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 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.