SNPG vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

SNPG (Xtrackers S&P 500 Growth ESG ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. SNPG is passively managed, while IQM is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, SNPG returned 25.37%/yr vs 37.11%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SNPG charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

SNPG vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers S&P 500 Growth ESG ETF (SNPG) 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, SNPG achieves a 11.36% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 38.49% return.

SNPG

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: 9.28%
• YTD: 11.36%
• 6M: 11.71%
• 1Y: 29.68%
• 3Y*: 25.37%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: -1.20%
• 1M: 9.28%
• YTD: 38.49%
• 6M: 34.62%
• 1Y: 72.20%
• 3Y*: 37.11%
• 5Y*: 21.93%
• 10Y*: —

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

SNPG vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
SNPG Xtrackers S&P 500 Growth ESG ETF	11.36%	18.22%	33.99%	38.45%	1.81%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	38.49%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	2.18%

Correlation

The correlation between SNPG and IQM is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 10, 2022	0.83

The correlation between SNPG and IQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.83 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

SNPG vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SNPG	IQM
Technology	36.1%	65.9%
Communication Services	19.4%	2.1%
Financial Services	12.8%	-
Industrials	10.5%	19.9%
Healthcare	9.6%	1.1%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	4.1%
Real Estate	2.2%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.0%	-
Energy	0.0%	2.7%
Utilities	0.0%	3.3%

Return for Risk

SNPG vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

SNPG

SNPG Risk / Return Rank: 59
SNPG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
SNPG Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
SNPG Omega Ratio Rank: 62
SNPG Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
SNPG Martin Ratio Rank: 55

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 77
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 70
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

SNPG vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers S&P 500 Growth ESG ETF (SNPG) 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.

	SNPG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	2.57	-0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.02	3.01	+0.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.41	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.27	4.94	-2.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.43	16.15	-6.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SNPG vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SNPG Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is comparable to the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SNPG 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

	SNPG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.12	2.57	-0.44
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.76	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.63	0.95	+0.67

Drawdowns

SNPG vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SNPG drawdown since its inception was -21.69%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SNPG and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	SNPG	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.69%	-44.91%	+23.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.12%	-14.71%	+1.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.69%	-30.42%	+8.73%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.57%	+1.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.53%	-12.24%	+9.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.15%	4.49%	-1.34%

Volatility

SNPG vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers S&P 500 Growth ESG ETF (SNPG) is 4.71%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.33%. This indicates that SNPG 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

	SNPG	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.71%	9.33%	-4.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.43%	22.97%	-11.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.05%	28.28%	-14.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.00%	28.90%	-10.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.00%	30.71%	-12.71%

SNPG vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

SNPG has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

SNPG vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

SNPG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.46%, 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%
SNPG Xtrackers S&P 500 Growth ESG ETF	0.46%	0.49%	0.57%	0.95%	0.20%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SNPG and IQM in my portfolio?

SNPG and IQM have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SNPG or IQM?

IQM has higher volatility (9.33%) compared to SNPG (4.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SNPG dropped -21.69% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, SNPG or IQM?

On 3-year performance, IQM leads with 37.11% vs 25.37% for SNPG. On fees, SNPG is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, SNPG has been the lower-risk option at 4.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SNPG or IQM?

Over the 3-year period, IQM has performed better with a 37.11% return vs 25.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SNPG or IQM?

SNPG is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for IQM.

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

SNPG has the higher dividend yield at 0.46%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between SNPG and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for SNPG and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs 2.12), 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.