MMLG vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MMLG (First Trust Multi-Manager Large Growth ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MMLG returned 8.34%/yr vs 22.22%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MMLG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

MMLG vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Multi-Manager Large Growth ETF (MMLG) 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, MMLG achieves a 4.76% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 40.18% return.

MMLG

• 1D: -1.42%
• 1M: 4.92%
• YTD: 4.76%
• 6M: 4.14%
• 1Y: 16.13%
• 3Y*: 21.41%
• 5Y*: 8.34%
• 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)

MMLG vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
MMLG First Trust Multi-Manager Large Growth ETF	4.76%	17.28%	25.96%	45.21%	-39.18%	13.23%	20.61%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	40.18%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	39.37%

Correlation

The correlation between MMLG 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	0.87
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2020	0.89

The correlation between MMLG and IQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

MMLG vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MMLG	IQM
Technology	39.5%	65.9%
Financial Services	13.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	11.8%	4.1%
Industrials	10.5%	19.9%
Healthcare	9.2%	1.1%
Communication Services	7.9%	2.1%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	-
Basic Materials	1.3%	-
Energy	1.3%	2.7%
Utilities	1.3%	3.3%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

MMLG vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MMLG

MMLG Risk / Return Rank: 23
MMLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
MMLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
MMLG Omega Ratio Rank: 24
MMLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
MMLG Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

MMLG vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Multi-Manager Large Growth ETF (MMLG) 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.

	MMLG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	2.67	-1.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.29	3.11	-1.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.43	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.81	5.13	-4.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.34	16.79	-14.45
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MMLG vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MMLG Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MMLG 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

	MMLG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89	2.67	-1.78
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.34	0.77	-0.44
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.46	0.96	-0.50

Drawdowns

MMLG vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MMLG drawdown since its inception was -45.97%, roughly equal to the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MMLG and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MMLG	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.97%	-44.91%	-1.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.89%	-14.71%	-5.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.57%	-30.42%	+3.85%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-45.97%	-44.91%	-1.06%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.17%	-0.37%	-1.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.36%	-12.25%	-2.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.91%	4.49%	+2.42%

Volatility

MMLG vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Multi-Manager Large Growth ETF (MMLG) is 4.37%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.20%. This indicates that MMLG 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

	MMLG	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.37%	9.20%	-4.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.03%	22.92%	-8.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.22%	28.27%	-10.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.94%	28.91%	-3.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.54%	30.72%	-6.18%

MMLG vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MMLG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

MMLG vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

Neither MMLG 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%
MMLG First Trust Multi-Manager Large Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MMLG and IQM in my portfolio?

MMLG 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, MMLG or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (9.20%) compared to MMLG (4.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MMLG dropped -45.97% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, MMLG or IQM?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 22.22% vs 8.34% for MMLG. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, MMLG has been the lower-risk option at 4.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MMLG or IQM?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 22.22% return vs 8.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MMLG or IQM?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for MMLG.

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

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

What is the main difference between MMLG and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for MMLG and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 0.89), 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.