TMFM vs. IPO

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

TMFM (Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and IPO (Renaissance IPO ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds. TMFM is actively managed, while IPO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, TMFM returned 2.09%/yr vs 17.15%/yr for IPO. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TMFM charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for IPO.

Performance

TMFM vs. IPO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF (TMFM) and Renaissance IPO ETF (IPO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TMFM achieves a -6.90% return, which is significantly lower than IPO's 22.19% return.

TMFM

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 2.46%
• 6M: -10.09%
• YTD: -6.90%
• 1Y: -16.65%
• 3Y*: 2.09%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IPO

• 1D: -3.23%
• 1M: -0.02%
• 6M: 15.20%
• YTD: 22.19%
• 1Y: 26.88%
• 3Y*: 17.15%
• 5Y*: -1.77%
• 10Y*: 11.10%

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

TMFM vs. IPO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
TMFM Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF	-6.90%	-8.98%	17.54%	21.81%	-27.36%	1.91%
IPO Renaissance IPO ETF	22.19%	5.45%	15.68%	52.55%	-57.26%	1.12%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFM and IPO is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2021	0.70

Over the past year, the correlation between TMFM and IPO has dropped to 0.44 - well below their long-term average of 0.70, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

TMFM vs. IPO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMFM	IPO
Technology	31.7%	46.6%
Healthcare	24.2%	8.9%
Industrials	20.2%	8.8%
Financial Services	13.6%	4.4%
Real Estate	4.6%	3.5%
Consumer Cyclical	3.4%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	7.8%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	6.7%
Energy	-	0.9%
Utilities	-	0.2%

Return for Risk

TMFM vs. IPO — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFM

TMFM Risk / Return Rank: 3
TMFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
TMFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
TMFM Omega Ratio Rank: 3
TMFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
TMFM Martin Ratio Rank: 4

IPO

IPO Risk / Return Rank: 28
IPO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
IPO Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
IPO Omega Ratio Rank: 28
IPO Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
IPO Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

TMFM vs. IPO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF (TMFM) and Renaissance IPO ETF (IPO). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	TMFM	IPO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.88	0.88	-1.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.22	1.36	-2.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.87	1.16	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.63	1.03	-1.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.09	2.29	-3.38

TMFM vs. IPO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFM Sharpe Ratio is -0.88, which is lower than the IPO Sharpe Ratio of 0.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFM and IPO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

TMFM vs. IPO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFM drawdown since its inception was -31.75%, smaller than the maximum IPO drawdown of -68.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFM and IPO.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFM	IPO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.75%	-68.76%	+37.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.59%	-26.24%	-0.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-31.75%	-32.04%	+0.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-66.02%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-68.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.24%	-26.17%	+1.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.05%	-22.94%	+6.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.34%	11.75%	+3.59%

Volatility

TMFM vs. IPO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF (TMFM) is 5.37%, while Renaissance IPO ETF (IPO) has a volatility of 10.82%. This indicates that TMFM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IPO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TMFM	IPO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.37%	10.82%	-5.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.91%	24.36%	-8.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.13%	30.88%	-11.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.57%	36.19%	-15.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.57%	31.64%	-11.07%

TMFM vs. IPO - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than IPO's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMFM vs. IPO - Dividend Comparison

TMFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than IPO's 0.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IPO Renaissance IPO ETF	0.43%	0.66%	0.12%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.10%	0.26%	0.49%	0.43%	0.40%	0.11%
TMFM Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.07%	0.06%	16.27%	2.55%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFM and IPO in my portfolio?

TMFM and IPO have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMFM or IPO?

IPO has higher volatility (10.82%) compared to TMFM (5.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFM dropped -31.75% vs IPO's -68.76%.

Which ETF is better, TMFM or IPO?

On 3-year performance, IPO leads with 17.15% vs 2.09% for TMFM. On fees, IPO is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, TMFM has been the lower-risk option at 5.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMFM or IPO?

Over the 3-year period, IPO has performed better with a 17.15% return vs 2.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFM or IPO?

IPO is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TMFM or IPO?

IPO has the higher dividend yield at 0.43%, compared with 0.07% for TMFM.

What is the main difference between TMFM and IPO?

They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Renaissance Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFM and 0.60% for IPO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IPO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.88 vs -0.88), 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.