MILN vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MILN (Global X Millennial Consumer ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. MILN is passively managed, while IQM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MILN returned 0.03%/yr vs 20.13%/yr for IQM. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.

Performance

MILN vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Millennial Consumer ETF (MILN) 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, MILN achieves a -9.43% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 35.15% return.

MILN

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: -1.49%
• YTD: -9.43%
• 6M: -9.60%
• 1Y: -9.15%
• 3Y*: 11.27%
• 5Y*: 0.03%
• 10Y*: 11.48%

IQM

• 1D: -6.20%
• 1M: 3.59%
• YTD: 35.15%
• 6M: 31.71%
• 1Y: 66.07%
• 3Y*: 35.52%
• 5Y*: 20.13%
• 10Y*: —

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

MILN vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
MILN Global X Millennial Consumer ETF	-9.43%	4.63%	27.11%	36.27%	-38.55%	13.99%	47.21%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	35.15%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	76.92%

Correlation

The correlation between MILN and IQM is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.60
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2020	0.75

Over the past year, the correlation between MILN and IQM has dropped to 0.39 - well below their long-term average of 0.75, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

MILN vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MILN	IQM
Consumer Cyclical	51.5%	2.9%
Communication Services	16.3%	2.3%
Technology	13.9%	68.4%
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	-
Real Estate	6.0%	-
Financial Services	4.8%	-
Healthcare	0.8%	1.0%
Industrials	0.4%	17.1%
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	2.3%
Utilities	-	3.2%

Return for Risk

MILN vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MILN

MILN Risk / Return Rank: 5
MILN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
MILN Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
MILN Omega Ratio Rank: 4
MILN Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
MILN Martin Ratio Rank: 5

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 70
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 61
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
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.

MILN vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Millennial Consumer ETF (MILN) 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.

	MILN	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.53	2.11	-2.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.62	2.52	-3.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.93	1.35	-0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.41	4.52	-4.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.87	14.13	-15.00

MILN vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MILN Sharpe Ratio is -0.53, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MILN 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

MILN vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MILN drawdown since its inception was -44.40%, roughly equal to the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MILN and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MILN	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.40%	-44.91%	+0.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.32%	-14.71%	-7.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.48%	-30.42%	+6.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.40%	-44.91%	+0.51%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.40%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.02%	-6.20%	-9.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.69%	-12.18%	+1.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.49%	4.69%	+5.80%

Volatility

MILN vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Millennial Consumer ETF (MILN) is 5.63%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 15.34%. This indicates that MILN 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

	MILN	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.63%	15.34%	-9.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.62%	26.16%	-12.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.42%	31.47%	-14.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.71%	29.56%	-6.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.04%	31.10%	-9.06%

MILN vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

MILN vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

MILN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.28%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.17%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MILN Global X Millennial Consumer ETF	0.28%	0.25%	0.22%	0.33%	0.24%	0.15%	0.21%	0.43%	0.43%	0.89%	0.32%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MILN and IQM in my portfolio?

MILN and IQM have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MILN or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (15.34%) compared to MILN (5.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MILN dropped -44.40% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, MILN or IQM?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 20.13% vs 0.03% for MILN. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, MILN has been the lower-risk option at 5.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MILN or IQM?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 20.13% return vs 0.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MILN or IQM?

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

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

MILN has the higher dividend yield at 0.28%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between MILN and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Franklin Templeton.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs -0.53), 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.