NBGX vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

NBGX (Neuberger Growth ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NBGX returned 19.09% vs 72.20% for IQM. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NBGX charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

NBGX vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Growth ETF (NBGX) 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, NBGX achieves a 6.18% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 38.49% return.

NBGX

• 1D: 0.41%
• 1M: 3.51%
• YTD: 6.18%
• 6M: 5.66%
• 1Y: 19.09%
• 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)

NBGX vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NBGX Neuberger Growth ETF	6.18%	16.40%	-0.53%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	38.49%	30.76%	-0.27%

Correlation

The correlation between NBGX and IQM is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2024	0.82

The correlation between NBGX and IQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NBGX vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBGX

NBGX Risk / Return Rank: 34
NBGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
NBGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
NBGX Omega Ratio Rank: 37
NBGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
NBGX Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

NBGX vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Growth ETF (NBGX) 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.

	NBGX	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	2.57	-1.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.92	3.01	-1.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.41	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.29	4.94	-3.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.44	16.15	-11.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NBGX vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBGX Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBGX 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

	NBGX	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.36	2.57	-1.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.76	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.77	0.95	-0.18

Drawdowns

NBGX vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBGX drawdown since its inception was -21.55%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBGX and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBGX	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.55%	-44.91%	+23.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.86%	-14.71%	-0.15%
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	-0.86%	-1.57%	+0.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.92%	-12.24%	+8.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.31%	4.49%	-0.18%

Volatility

NBGX vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Neuberger Growth ETF (NBGX) is 3.12%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.33%. This indicates that NBGX 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

	NBGX	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.12%	9.33%	-6.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.73%	22.97%	-12.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.15%	28.28%	-14.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.96%	28.90%	-8.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.96%	30.71%	-10.75%

NBGX vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBGX has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is lower than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBGX vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

NBGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, 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%
NBGX Neuberger Growth ETF	0.39%	0.41%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBGX and IQM in my portfolio?

NBGX and IQM have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NBGX or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (9.33%) compared to NBGX (3.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBGX dropped -21.55% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, NBGX or IQM?

On 1-year performance, IQM leads with 72.20% vs 19.09% for NBGX. On fees, NBGX is cheaper at 0.44% per year. On volatility, NBGX has been the lower-risk option at 3.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBGX or IQM?

Over the 1-year period, IQM has performed better with a 72.20% return vs 19.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBGX or IQM?

NBGX is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for IQM.

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

NBGX has the higher dividend yield at 0.39%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between NBGX and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Neuberger and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for NBGX and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs 1.36), 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.