PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
TMFC vs. IQM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

TMFC vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TMFC achieves a 8.44% return, which is significantly lower than IQM's 40.18% return.


TMFC

1D
-0.85%
1M
4.54%
YTD
8.44%
6M
8.14%
1Y
25.76%
3Y*
26.20%
5Y*
15.96%
10Y*

IQM

1D
-0.37%
1M
11.94%
YTD
40.18%
6M
38.57%
1Y
75.07%
3Y*
37.62%
5Y*
22.22%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

TMFC vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
TMFC
Motley Fool 100 Index ETF
8.44%19.55%35.17%47.04%-30.86%25.30%47.37%
IQM
Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF
40.18%30.76%31.03%41.06%-33.36%25.18%78.48%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFC and IQM is 0.75, 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

0.75

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.83

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.87

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2020

0.86

The correlation between TMFC and IQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.75 (1 year) to 0.87 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

TMFC vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
TMFC
IQM

Technology

41.4%
65.9%

Communication Services

17.4%
2.1%

Financial Services

12.9%

-

Consumer Cyclical

11.4%
4.1%

Healthcare

4.8%
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

4.3%

-

Industrials

4.0%
19.9%

Energy

1.9%
2.7%

Real Estate

0.9%

-

Basic Materials

0.6%

-

Utilities

0.5%
3.3%

Technology

TMFC
41.4%
IQM
65.9%

Communication Services

TMFC
17.4%
IQM
2.1%

Financial Services

TMFC
12.9%
IQM

-

Consumer Cyclical

TMFC
11.4%
IQM
4.1%

Healthcare

TMFC
4.8%
IQM
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

TMFC
4.3%
IQM

-

Industrials

TMFC
4.0%
IQM
19.9%

Energy

TMFC
1.9%
IQM
2.7%

Real Estate

TMFC
0.9%
IQM

-

Basic Materials

TMFC
0.6%
IQM

-

Utilities

TMFC
0.5%
IQM
3.3%

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

TMFC vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFC
TMFC Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
TMFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TMFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
TMFC Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
TMFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
TMFC Martin Ratio Rank: 4646
Martin Ratio Rank

IQM
IQM Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

TMFC vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) 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.


TMFCIQMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.76

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.48

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.43

-0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.05

5.13

-3.08

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.63

16.79

-9.16

TMFC vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is comparable to the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFC 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


TMFCIQMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.91

2.67

-0.76

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.79

0.77

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.83

0.96

-0.13

Drawdowns

TMFC vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFC drawdown since its inception was -33.06%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFC and IQM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


TMFCIQMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.06%

-44.91%

+11.85%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.64%

-14.71%

+2.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.06%

-30.42%

+10.36%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-33.06%

-44.91%

+11.85%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.11%

-0.37%

-0.74%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.77%

-12.25%

+5.48%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.39%

4.49%

-1.10%

Volatility

TMFC vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) is 3.21%, while Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a volatility of 9.20%. This indicates that TMFC 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


TMFCIQMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.21%

9.20%

-5.99%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.11%

22.92%

-12.81%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.52%

28.27%

-14.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.37%

28.91%

-8.54%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.99%

30.72%

-8.73%

TMFC vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

TMFC vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

TMFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
IQM
Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.17%0.01%0.00%0.00%
TMFC
Motley Fool 100 Index ETF
0.13%0.14%0.40%0.26%0.27%0.23%0.42%0.50%0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions


TMFC and IQM have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IQM has higher volatility (9.20%) compared to TMFC (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFC dropped -33.06% vs IQM's -44.91%.

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 22.22% vs 15.96% for TMFC. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, TMFC has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 22.22% return vs 15.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

TMFC and IQM have the same expense ratio: 0.50% per year.

TMFC has the higher dividend yield at 0.13%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Franklin Templeton.

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 1.91), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for TMFC and IQM

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