LGRO vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LGRO (Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LGRO returned 25.66% vs 72.20% for IQM. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.

Performance

LGRO vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF (LGRO) 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, LGRO achieves a 8.22% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 38.49% return.

LGRO

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: 7.37%
• YTD: 8.22%
• 6M: 8.56%
• 1Y: 25.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

LGRO vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LGRO Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF	8.22%	18.15%	23.95%	11.74%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	38.49%	30.76%	31.03%	9.98%

Correlation

The correlation between LGRO and IQM is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 24, 2023	0.81

The correlation between LGRO and IQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (1 year) to 0.81 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LGRO vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGRO	IQM
Technology	48.1%	65.9%
Consumer Cyclical	14.4%	4.1%
Communication Services	13.4%	2.1%
Financial Services	9.1%	-
Healthcare	8.1%	1.1%
Industrials	3.0%	19.9%
Energy	2.2%	2.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

LGRO vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGRO

LGRO Risk / Return Rank: 42
LGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
LGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
LGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 46
LGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
LGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

LGRO vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF (LGRO) 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.

	LGRO	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.65	2.57	-0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.25	3.01	-0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.41	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.69	4.94	-3.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.51	16.15	-10.64
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LGRO vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGRO Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGRO 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

	LGRO	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.65	2.57	-0.92
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.76	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.19	0.95	+0.24

Drawdowns

LGRO vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGRO drawdown since its inception was -23.26%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGRO and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGRO	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.26%	-44.91%	+21.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.24%	-14.71%	-0.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-30.42%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.80%	-1.57%	-0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.39%	-12.24%	+8.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.67%	4.49%	+0.18%

Volatility

LGRO vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF (LGRO) is 4.01%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.33%. This indicates that LGRO 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

	LGRO	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.01%	9.33%	-5.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.40%	22.97%	-11.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.62%	28.28%	-12.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.29%	28.90%	-9.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.29%	30.71%	-11.42%

LGRO vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

LGRO vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

LGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%, while IQM has not 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%
LGRO Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF	0.32%	0.31%	0.39%	0.26%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGRO and IQM in my portfolio?

LGRO and IQM have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LGRO or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (9.33%) compared to LGRO (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGRO dropped -23.26% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, LGRO or IQM?

On 1-year performance, IQM leads with 72.20% vs 25.66% for LGRO. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, LGRO has been the lower-risk option at 4.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGRO or IQM?

Over the 1-year period, IQM has performed better with a 72.20% return vs 25.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGRO or IQM?

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

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

LGRO has the higher dividend yield at 0.32%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between LGRO and IQM?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs 1.65), 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.