PCLG vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

PCLG (Polen Focus Growth ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PCLG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

PCLG vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Focus Growth ETF (PCLG) 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, PCLG achieves a -13.43% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 35.15% return.

PCLG

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: -5.24%
• YTD: -13.43%
• 6M: -13.98%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

PCLG vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
PCLG Polen Focus Growth ETF	-13.43%	-0.45%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	35.15%	1.35%

Correlation

The correlation between PCLG and IQM is 0.57, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2025	0.57

Return for Risk

PCLG vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCLG

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

PCLG vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Focus Growth ETF (PCLG) 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.

	PCLG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.11	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.52	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.35	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	4.52	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	14.13	—

Drawdowns

PCLG vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCLG drawdown since its inception was -23.78%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCLG and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCLG	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.78%	-44.91%	+21.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-14.71%	—
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	-17.23%	-6.20%	-11.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.95%	-12.18%	+2.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	4.69%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	PCLG	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	15.34%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	26.16%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.09%	31.47%	-13.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.09%	29.56%	-11.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.09%	31.10%	-13.01%

PCLG vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCLG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCLG vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

PCLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, 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%
PCLG Polen Focus Growth ETF	0.04%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCLG and IQM in my portfolio?

PCLG and IQM have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, PCLG or IQM?

On fees, PCLG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCLG or IQM?

PCLG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for IQM.

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

PCLG has the higher dividend yield at 0.04%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between PCLG and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Polen and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for PCLG and 0.50% for IQM.