NBSM vs. IMCG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NBSM (Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF) and IMCG (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds. NBSM is actively managed, while IMCG is passively managed. Over the past year, NBSM returned 8.81% vs 23.35% for IMCG. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NBSM charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.06%/yr for IMCG.

Performance

NBSM vs. IMCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF (NBSM) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBSM achieves a 5.59% return, which is significantly lower than IMCG's 20.05% return.

NBSM

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 0.41%
• YTD: 5.59%
• 6M: 3.81%
• 1Y: 8.81%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IMCG

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 8.33%
• YTD: 20.05%
• 6M: 18.28%
• 1Y: 23.35%
• 3Y*: 18.91%
• 5Y*: 8.62%
• 10Y*: 14.46%

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

NBSM vs. IMCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NBSM Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF	5.59%	-0.04%	-0.40%
IMCG iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF	20.05%	6.55%	8.05%

Correlation

The correlation between NBSM and IMCG 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 Mar 22, 2024	0.83

The correlation between NBSM and IMCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

NBSM vs. IMCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NBSM	IMCG
Industrials	32.3%	26.6%
Technology	17.8%	30.4%
Financial Services	16.4%	9.1%
Healthcare	8.4%	7.4%
Energy	7.2%	2.1%
Utilities	6.1%	2.7%
Consumer Cyclical	5.0%	10.0%
Communication Services	2.7%	2.6%
Real Estate	2.7%	3.4%
Basic Materials	1.5%	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

NBSM vs. IMCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBSM

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

IMCG

IMCG Risk / Return Rank: 44
IMCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
IMCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
IMCG Omega Ratio Rank: 40
IMCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
IMCG Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

NBSM vs. IMCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF (NBSM) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG). 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.

	NBSM	IMCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	1.51	-0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.00	2.18	-1.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.26	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.87	2.31	-1.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.62	8.97	-6.35
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NBSM vs. IMCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBSM Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is lower than the IMCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBSM and IMCG, 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

	NBSM	IMCG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59	1.51	-0.92
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.43	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.71	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.13	0.54	-0.41

Drawdowns

NBSM vs. IMCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBSM drawdown since its inception was -25.16%, smaller than the maximum IMCG drawdown of -58.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBSM and IMCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBSM	IMCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.16%	-58.96%	+33.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.12%	-10.17%	+0.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-21.92%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.08%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.08%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.11%	-0.26%	-4.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.43%	-9.22%	+1.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.37%	2.61%	+0.76%

Volatility

NBSM vs. IMCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF (NBSM) is 3.92%, while iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) has a volatility of 4.65%. This indicates that NBSM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IMCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NBSM	IMCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.92%	4.65%	-0.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.62%	12.53%	-1.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.98%	15.53%	-0.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.09%	20.17%	-2.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.09%	20.51%	-2.42%

NBSM vs. IMCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBSM has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than IMCG's 0.06% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBSM vs. IMCG - Dividend Comparison

NBSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%, less than IMCG's 0.65% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IMCG iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.65%	0.78%	0.78%	0.85%	0.91%	0.41%	0.09%	0.30%	0.35%	0.45%	0.52%	0.38%
NBSM Neuberger Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.38%	0.40%	0.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBSM and IMCG in my portfolio?

NBSM and IMCG 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, NBSM or IMCG?

IMCG has higher volatility (4.65%) compared to NBSM (3.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBSM dropped -25.16% vs IMCG's -58.96%.

Which ETF is better, NBSM or IMCG?

On 1-year performance, IMCG leads with 23.35% vs 8.81% for NBSM. On fees, IMCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, NBSM has been the lower-risk option at 3.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBSM or IMCG?

Over the 1-year period, IMCG has performed better with a 23.35% return vs 8.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBSM or IMCG?

IMCG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for NBSM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NBSM or IMCG?

IMCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.65%, compared with 0.38% for NBSM.

What is the main difference between NBSM and IMCG?

They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for NBSM and 0.06% for IMCG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IMCG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.51 vs 0.59), 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.