RSMC vs. FLQS
RSMC (Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF) and FLQS (Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. RSMC is actively managed, while FLQS is passively managed. Over the past year, RSMC returned 10.02% vs 13.84% for FLQS. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RSMC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for FLQS.
Performance
RSMC vs. FLQS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RSMC achieves a 10.85% return, which is significantly higher than FLQS's 6.14% return.
RSMC
- 1D
- -0.07%
- 1M
- 2.49%
- YTD
- 10.85%
- 6M
- 8.72%
- 1Y
- 10.02%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FLQS
- 1D
- -0.81%
- 1M
- 0.12%
- YTD
- 6.14%
- 6M
- 5.99%
- 1Y
- 13.84%
- 3Y*
- 11.59%
- 5Y*
- 5.27%
- 10Y*
- —
RSMC vs. FLQS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF | 10.85% | -1.02% | 0.68% |
FLQS Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF | 6.14% | 5.04% | -0.87% |
Correlation
The correlation between RSMC and FLQS is 0.89, 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 | 0.89 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2024 | 0.89 |
The correlation between RSMC and FLQS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
RSMC vs. FLQS — Risk / Return Rank
RSMC
FLQS
RSMC vs. FLQS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) and Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF (FLQS). 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.
| RSMC | FLQS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.33 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.49 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.17 | -0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.96 | 1.54 | -0.58 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.87 | 4.55 | -1.67 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RSMC | FLQS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.59 | 0.91 | -0.33 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.28 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.31 | 0.38 | -0.07 |
Drawdowns
RSMC vs. FLQS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RSMC drawdown since its inception was -22.33%, smaller than the maximum FLQS drawdown of -42.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSMC and FLQS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RSMC | FLQS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.33% | -42.16% | +19.83% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.49% | -9.00% | -1.49% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -23.12% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -28.05% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.03% | -1.33% | -0.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.26% | -8.02% | +2.76% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.50% | 3.05% | +0.45% |
Volatility
RSMC vs. FLQS - Volatility Comparison
Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) has a higher volatility of 4.81% compared to Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF (FLQS) at 4.09%. This indicates that RSMC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLQS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RSMC | FLQS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.81% | 4.09% | +0.72% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.36% | 10.26% | +2.10% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.16% | 15.22% | +1.94% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.38% | 19.24% | +1.14% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.38% | 21.68% | -1.30% |
RSMC vs. FLQS - Expense Ratio Comparison
RSMC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQS's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
RSMC vs. FLQS - Dividend Comparison
RSMC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FLQS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.35%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLQS Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Small Cap Equity ETF | 1.35% | 1.16% | 1.29% | 1.75% | 1.40% | 0.95% | 1.20% | 1.41% | 1.27% | 1.02% |
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RSMC and FLQS have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
RSMC has higher volatility (4.81%) compared to FLQS (4.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSMC dropped -22.33% vs FLQS's -42.16%.
On 1-year performance, FLQS leads with 13.84% vs 10.02% for RSMC. On fees, FLQS is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, FLQS has been the lower-risk option at 4.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, FLQS has performed better with a 13.84% return vs 10.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FLQS is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RSMC.
FLQS has the higher dividend yield at 1.35%, compared with 0.00% for RSMC.
They also come from different issuers: Rockefeller and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for RSMC and 0.35% for FLQS.
FLQS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.91 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.
Find the right allocation for RSMC and FLQS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer