LSGR vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LSGR (Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LSGR returned 12.43% vs 75.07% for IQM. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LSGR charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

LSGR vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF (LSGR) 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, LSGR achieves a -0.58% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 40.18% return.

LSGR

• 1D: -1.55%
• 1M: 1.34%
• YTD: -0.58%
• 6M: 0.39%
• 1Y: 12.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

LSGR vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LSGR Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF	-0.58%	15.32%	38.52%	12.34%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	40.18%	30.76%	31.03%	5.89%

Correlation

The correlation between LSGR 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 Jun 30, 2023	0.81

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

LSGR vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LSGR	IQM
Technology	32.1%	65.9%
Communication Services	28.3%	2.1%
Consumer Cyclical	17.4%	4.1%
Healthcare	8.9%	1.1%
Financial Services	4.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.5%	-
Industrials	4.1%	19.9%
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	2.7%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

LSGR vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

LSGR

LSGR Risk / Return Rank: 20
LSGR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
LSGR Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
LSGR Omega Ratio Rank: 21
LSGR Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
LSGR Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

LSGR vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF (LSGR) 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.

	LSGR	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.76	2.67	-1.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.13	3.11	-1.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.43	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.69	5.13	-4.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.20	16.79	-14.59
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LSGR vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LSGR Sharpe Ratio is 0.76, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LSGR 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

	LSGR	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.76	2.67	-1.91
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.77	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	0.96	+0.12

Drawdowns

LSGR vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LSGR drawdown since its inception was -22.92%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LSGR and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	LSGR	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.92%	-44.91%	+21.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.13%	-14.71%	-3.42%
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	-3.72%	-0.37%	-3.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.89%	-12.25%	+8.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.67%	4.49%	+1.18%

Volatility

LSGR vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF (LSGR) is 4.72%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.20%. This indicates that LSGR 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

	LSGR	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.72%	9.20%	-4.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.36%	22.92%	-10.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.39%	28.27%	-11.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.39%	28.91%	-8.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.39%	30.72%	-10.33%

LSGR vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

LSGR has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

LSGR vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

Neither LSGR 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%
LSGR Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF	0.00%	0.05%	0.08%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LSGR and IQM in my portfolio?

LSGR 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, LSGR or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (9.20%) compared to LSGR (4.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LSGR dropped -22.92% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, LSGR or IQM?

On 1-year performance, IQM leads with 75.07% vs 12.43% for LSGR. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, LSGR has been the lower-risk option at 4.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LSGR or IQM?

Over the 1-year period, IQM has performed better with a 75.07% return vs 12.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LSGR or IQM?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for LSGR.

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

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

What is the main difference between LSGR and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Natixis and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for LSGR and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 0.76), 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.