PALC vs. IQM

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

PALC (Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. PALC is passively managed, while IQM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, PALC returned 8.89%/yr vs 17.97%/yr for IQM. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PALC charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

PALC vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PALC) 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, PALC achieves a 9.84% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 24.75% return.

PALC

• 1D: -1.64%
• 1M: -0.69%
• 6M: 5.44%
• YTD: 9.84%
• 1Y: 17.30%
• 3Y*: 14.46%
• 5Y*: 8.89%
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: -4.24%
• 1M: -6.72%
• 6M: 14.98%
• YTD: 24.75%
• 1Y: 44.62%
• 3Y*: 29.42%
• 5Y*: 17.97%
• 10Y*: —

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

PALC vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
PALC Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF	9.84%	7.28%	21.24%	17.52%	-14.74%	41.03%	23.19%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	24.75%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	57.40%

Correlation

The correlation between PALC and IQM is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.71
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2020	0.74

The correlation between PALC and IQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.62 (1 year) to 0.76 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PALC vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PALC	IQM
Technology	42.1%	67.6%
Industrials	11.9%	16.8%
Healthcare	9.4%	1.0%
Financial Services	8.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.2%	3.2%
Communication Services	4.8%	2.1%
Basic Materials	4.7%	-
Utilities	4.3%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	-
Energy	1.9%	2.9%
Real Estate	0.5%	-

Return for Risk

PALC vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

PALC

PALC Risk / Return Rank: 46
PALC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
PALC Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
PALC Omega Ratio Rank: 43
PALC Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
PALC Martin Ratio Rank: 51

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 55
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 46
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

PALC vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PALC) 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.

	PALC	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.24	1.33	-0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.75	1.75	0.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.24	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.94	3.05	-1.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.85	8.72	-1.87

PALC vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PALC Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is comparable to the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 1.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PALC 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

PALC vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PALC drawdown since its inception was -24.45%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PALC and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	PALC	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.45%	-44.91%	+20.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.94%	-14.71%	+5.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.39%	-30.42%	+13.03%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.45%	-44.91%	+20.46%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.28%	-13.42%	+9.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.26%	-12.15%	+5.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.53%	5.13%	-2.60%

Volatility

PALC vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PALC) is 7.42%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 17.10%. This indicates that PALC 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

	PALC	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.42%	17.10%	-9.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.65%	28.79%	-17.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.04%	33.72%	-19.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.59%	30.08%	-13.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.27%	31.38%	-14.11%

PALC vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

PALC has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

PALC vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

PALC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.07%, 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%
PALC Pacer Lunt Large Cap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF	1.07%	1.08%	0.93%	0.74%	1.69%	0.64%	0.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PALC and IQM in my portfolio?

PALC and IQM have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PALC or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (17.10%) compared to PALC (7.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PALC dropped -24.45% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, PALC or IQM?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 17.97% vs 8.89% for PALC. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PALC has been the lower-risk option at 7.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PALC or IQM?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 17.97% return vs 8.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PALC or IQM?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for PALC.

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

PALC has the higher dividend yield at 1.07%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between PALC and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PALC and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.33 vs 1.24), 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.