SAWS vs. FSGS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SAWS (AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF) and FSGS (First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. SAWS is actively managed, while FSGS is passively managed. Over the past year, SAWS returned 19.24% vs 4.81% for FSGS. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SAWS charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for FSGS.

Performance

SAWS vs. FSGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS) and First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SAWS achieves a 11.45% return, which is significantly higher than FSGS's 1.27% return.

SAWS

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: 0.03%
• YTD: 11.45%
• 6M: 12.55%
• 1Y: 19.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FSGS

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 0.83%
• YTD: 1.27%
• 6M: 0.20%
• 1Y: 4.81%
• 3Y*: 7.06%
• 5Y*: 2.19%
• 10Y*: —

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

SAWS vs. FSGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
SAWS AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF	11.45%	7.26%	3.52%
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	1.27%	2.41%	-0.93%

Correlation

The correlation between SAWS and FSGS is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2024	0.85

The correlation between SAWS and FSGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

SAWS vs. FSGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SAWS	FSGS
Industrials	27.7%	22.0%
Healthcare	18.3%	16.7%
Technology	15.1%	18.8%
Financial Services	14.2%	19.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	8.0%
Consumer Defensive	7.5%	5.0%
Energy	4.6%	4.2%
Basic Materials	3.6%	1.7%
Communication Services	-	3.1%
Real Estate	-	0.9%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

SAWS vs. FSGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

SAWS

SAWS Risk / Return Rank: 34
SAWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
SAWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
SAWS Omega Ratio Rank: 29
SAWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
SAWS Martin Ratio Rank: 40

FSGS

FSGS Risk / Return Rank: 14
FSGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
FSGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
FSGS Omega Ratio Rank: 13
FSGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
FSGS Martin Ratio Rank: 15

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.

SAWS vs. FSGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS) and First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS). 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.

	SAWS	FSGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.07	0.32	+0.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.67	0.57	+1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.06	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.89	0.43	+1.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.12	1.21	+4.91
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SAWS vs. FSGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SAWS Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is higher than the FSGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SAWS and FSGS, 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

	SAWS	FSGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.07	0.32	+0.75
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.11	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	0.30	+0.28

Drawdowns

SAWS vs. FSGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SAWS drawdown since its inception was -22.04%, smaller than the maximum FSGS drawdown of -43.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SAWS and FSGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	SAWS	FSGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.04%	-43.26%	+21.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.23%	-11.31%	+1.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-24.08%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.08%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.52%	-4.73%	+2.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.61%	-8.03%	+2.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.15%	3.97%	-0.82%

Volatility

SAWS vs. FSGS - Volatility Comparison

AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF (SAWS) has a higher volatility of 5.16% compared to First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) at 3.74%. This indicates that SAWS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FSGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SAWS	FSGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.16%	3.74%	+1.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.70%	10.73%	+2.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.14%	15.24%	+2.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.03%	20.14%	+0.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.03%	22.81%	-1.78%

SAWS vs. FSGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

SAWS has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than FSGS's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

SAWS vs. FSGS - Dividend Comparison

SAWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.02%, while FSGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	0.00%	0.00%	2.71%	2.29%	1.95%	1.35%	1.32%	1.77%	2.13%	1.15%
SAWS AAM Sawgrass U.S. Small Cap Quality Growth ETF	0.02%	0.02%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SAWS and FSGS in my portfolio?

SAWS and FSGS have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SAWS or FSGS?

SAWS has higher volatility (5.16%) compared to FSGS (3.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SAWS dropped -22.04% vs FSGS's -43.26%.

Which ETF is better, SAWS or FSGS?

On 1-year performance, SAWS leads with 19.24% vs 4.81% for FSGS. On fees, SAWS is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, FSGS has been the lower-risk option at 3.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SAWS or FSGS?

Over the 1-year period, SAWS has performed better with a 19.24% return vs 4.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SAWS or FSGS?

SAWS is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FSGS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SAWS or FSGS?

SAWS has the higher dividend yield at 0.02%, compared with 0.00% for FSGS.

What is the main difference between SAWS and FSGS?

They also come from different issuers: AAM and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for SAWS and 0.60% for FSGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SAWS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.07 vs 0.32), 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.