TDVG vs. IQM

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM).

TDVG and IQM are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. TDVG is an actively managed fund by T. Rowe Price. It was launched on Aug 4, 2020. IQM is an actively managed fund by Franklin Templeton. It was launched on Feb 25, 2020.

Performance

TDVG vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

TDVG vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	-0.44%	14.80%	13.45%	13.95%	-10.15%	26.20%	12.98%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	1.18%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	33.76%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TDVG achieves a -0.44% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 1.18% return.

TDVG

• 1D: 2.08%
• 1M: -5.21%
• YTD: -0.44%
• 6M: 2.12%
• 1Y: 11.67%
• 3Y*: 13.10%
• 5Y*: 9.61%
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: 6.12%
• 1M: -5.61%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 6M: 1.33%
• 1Y: 55.72%
• 3Y*: 26.13%
• 5Y*: 14.95%
• 10Y*: —

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

TDVG vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both TDVG and IQM have an expense ratio of 0.50%.

TDVG

T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF

IQM

Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF

Return for Risk

TDVG vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

TDVG

TDVG Risk / Return Rank: 49
TDVG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
TDVG Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
TDVG Omega Ratio Rank: 48
TDVG Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
TDVG Martin Ratio Rank: 58

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 88
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

TDVG vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) 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.

	TDVG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.78	1.68	-0.90
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.19	2.29	-1.10
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.32	-0.14
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.15	3.72	-2.57
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.46	11.65	-6.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TDVG vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TDVG Sharpe Ratio is 0.78, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TDVG and IQM, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	TDVG	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.78	1.68	-0.90
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69	0.52	+0.17
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.86	0.77	+0.08

Correlation

The correlation between TDVG and IQM is 0.69, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

TDVG vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

TDVG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	1.06%	1.00%	1.06%	1.31%	1.15%	0.80%	0.40%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.17%	0.01%

Drawdowns

TDVG vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TDVG drawdown since its inception was -19.20%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TDVG and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	TDVG	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.20%	-44.91%	+25.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.17%	-14.71%	+3.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.20%	-44.91%	+25.71%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.31%	-8.68%	+3.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.84%	-12.55%	+8.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.36%	4.70%	-2.34%

Volatility

TDVG vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) is 4.12%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 12.90%. This indicates that TDVG 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

	TDVG	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.12%	12.90%	-8.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.58%	23.48%	-15.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.03%	33.37%	-18.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.93%	28.67%	-14.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.04%	30.73%	-16.69%