MFSG vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

MFSG (MFS Active Growth ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MFSG returned 14.49% vs 61.93% for IQM. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MFSG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

MFSG vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) 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, MFSG achieves a 4.10% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 34.32% return.

MFSG

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: -1.85%
• YTD: 4.10%
• 6M: 2.91%
• 1Y: 14.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: 2.95%
• YTD: 34.32%
• 6M: 30.89%
• 1Y: 61.93%
• 3Y*: 35.24%
• 5Y*: 20.00%
• 10Y*: —

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

MFSG vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MFSG MFS Active Growth ETF	4.10%	14.51%	-2.99%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	34.32%	30.76%	-3.99%

Correlation

The correlation between MFSG and IQM is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 5, 2024	0.86

The correlation between MFSG and IQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MFSG vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MFSG

MFSG Risk / Return Rank: 24
MFSG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
MFSG Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
MFSG Omega Ratio Rank: 24
MFSG Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
MFSG Martin Ratio Rank: 25

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 70
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 62
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

MFSG vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	MFSG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.85	1.98	-1.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	2.40	-1.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.33	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.90	4.23	-3.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.09	13.19	-10.09

MFSG vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFSG Sharpe Ratio is 0.85, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 1.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFSG 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.

Drawdowns

MFSG vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFSG drawdown since its inception was -23.24%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFSG and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MFSG	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.24%	-44.91%	+21.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.15%	-14.71%	-1.44%
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	-4.18%	-6.78%	+2.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.60%	-12.18%	+7.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.70%	4.71%	-0.01%

Volatility

MFSG vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) is 7.08%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 15.35%. This indicates that MFSG 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

	MFSG	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.08%	15.35%	-8.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.74%	26.01%	-12.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.15%	31.46%	-14.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.95%	29.56%	-7.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.95%	31.09%	-9.14%

MFSG vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MFSG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

MFSG vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

MFSG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, 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%
MFSG MFS Active Growth ETF	0.07%	0.08%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MFSG and IQM in my portfolio?

MFSG and IQM have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MFSG or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (15.35%) compared to MFSG (7.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFSG dropped -23.24% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, MFSG or IQM?

On 1-year performance, IQM leads with 61.93% vs 14.49% for MFSG. On fees, MFSG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, MFSG has been the lower-risk option at 7.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MFSG or IQM?

Over the 1-year period, IQM has performed better with a 61.93% return vs 14.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MFSG or IQM?

MFSG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for IQM.

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

MFSG has the higher dividend yield at 0.07%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between MFSG and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: MFS and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for MFSG and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs 0.85), 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.