PWB vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

PWB (Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. PWB is passively managed, while IQM is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, PWB returned 18.57%/yr vs 22.83%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PWB charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

PWB vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF (PWB) 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, PWB achieves a 28.40% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 40.70% return.

PWB

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: 10.85%
• YTD: 28.40%
• 6M: 28.76%
• 1Y: 46.56%
• 3Y*: 34.40%
• 5Y*: 18.57%
• 10Y*: 18.44%

IQM

• 1D: 3.49%
• 1M: 12.88%
• YTD: 40.70%
• 6M: 40.33%
• 1Y: 78.30%
• 3Y*: 37.79%
• 5Y*: 22.83%
• 10Y*: —

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

PWB vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
PWB Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF	28.40%	24.94%	31.04%	30.61%	-25.81%	19.58%	39.89%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	40.70%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	78.48%

Correlation

The correlation between PWB and IQM is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2020	0.89

The correlation between PWB and IQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

PWB vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PWB	IQM
Technology	44.6%	65.9%
Industrials	15.9%	19.9%
Communication Services	10.9%	2.1%
Financial Services	10.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	8.4%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.2%	4.1%
Healthcare	3.6%	1.1%
Utilities	1.6%	3.3%
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	-	2.7%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

PWB vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

PWB

PWB Risk / Return Rank: 75
PWB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
PWB Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
PWB Omega Ratio Rank: 70
PWB Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
PWB Martin Ratio Rank: 83

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 80
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 73
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

PWB vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF (PWB) 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.

	PWB	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.53	2.79	-0.25
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.27	3.20	+0.07
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.44	-0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.95	5.40	-1.45
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.10	17.71	-0.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PWB vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PWB Sharpe Ratio is 2.53, which is comparable to the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PWB 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

	PWB	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.53	2.79	-0.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89	0.79	+0.10
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.89	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	0.97	-0.36

Drawdowns

PWB vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PWB drawdown since its inception was -52.58%, which is greater than IQM's maximum drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWB and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	PWB	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.58%	-44.91%	-7.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.11%	-14.71%	+2.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.10%	-30.42%	+8.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.41%	-44.91%	+13.50%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.36%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.24%	-12.25%	+4.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.80%	4.49%	-1.69%

Volatility

PWB vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF (PWB) is 5.39%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.15%. This indicates that PWB 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

	PWB	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.39%	9.15%	-3.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.03%	23.00%	-7.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.48%	28.27%	-9.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.00%	28.91%	-7.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.71%	30.73%	-10.02%

PWB vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

PWB has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

PWB vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

Neither PWB nor IQM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.17%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PWB Invesco Dynamic Large Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.08%	0.37%	0.31%	0.04%	0.21%	0.58%	0.97%	0.54%	0.82%	0.67%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PWB and IQM in my portfolio?

PWB and IQM have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PWB or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (9.15%) compared to PWB (5.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PWB dropped -52.58% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, PWB or IQM?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 22.83% vs 18.57% for PWB. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PWB has been the lower-risk option at 5.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PWB or IQM?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 22.83% return vs 18.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PWB or IQM?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for PWB.

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

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

What is the main difference between PWB and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for PWB and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 2.53), 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.