TMFS vs. FSGS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) and FSGS (First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. TMFS is actively managed, while FSGS is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMFS returned -1.68%/yr vs 2.19%/yr for FSGS. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TMFS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for FSGS.

Performance

TMFS vs. FSGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) 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, TMFS achieves a -4.69% return, which is significantly lower than FSGS's 1.27% return.

TMFS

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: -3.92%
• YTD: -4.69%
• 6M: -6.04%
• 1Y: -3.97%
• 3Y*: 6.32%
• 5Y*: -1.68%
• 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)

TMFS vs. FSGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF	-4.69%	-1.59%	15.41%	25.40%	-33.15%	-2.38%	58.52%	40.19%	-8.11%
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	1.27%	2.41%	6.38%	15.98%	-13.17%	25.56%	10.26%	21.31%	-10.82%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFS and FSGS is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2018	0.74

The correlation between TMFS and FSGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.74 (all time) to 0.86 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

TMFS vs. FSGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMFS	FSGS
Technology	26.6%	18.8%
Industrials	23.8%	22.0%
Healthcare	20.9%	16.7%
Financial Services	13.1%	19.5%
Consumer Cyclical	5.8%	8.0%
Real Estate	5.2%	0.9%
Basic Materials	2.4%	1.7%
Energy	2.4%	4.2%
Consumer Defensive	0.0%	5.0%
Communication Services	-	3.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

TMFS vs. FSGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFS

TMFS Risk / Return Rank: 6
TMFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
TMFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
TMFS Omega Ratio Rank: 6
TMFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
TMFS Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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.

TMFS vs. FSGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) 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.

	TMFS	FSGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.20	0.32	-0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.16	0.57	-0.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	1.06	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.25	0.43	-0.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.70	1.21	-1.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TMFS vs. FSGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFS Sharpe Ratio is -0.20, which is lower than the FSGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFS 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

	TMFS	FSGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.20	0.32	-0.52
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.07	0.11	-0.18
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	0.30	+0.02

Drawdowns

TMFS vs. FSGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFS drawdown since its inception was -48.79%, which is greater than FSGS's maximum drawdown of -43.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFS and FSGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFS	FSGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.79%	-43.26%	-5.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.73%	-11.31%	-4.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.05%	-24.08%	-2.97%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-45.68%	-24.08%	-21.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.78%	-4.73%	-18.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.47%	-8.03%	-11.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.68%	3.97%	+1.71%

Volatility

TMFS vs. FSGS - Volatility Comparison

Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) has a higher volatility of 5.23% compared to First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) at 3.74%. This indicates that TMFS'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

	TMFS	FSGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.23%	3.74%	+1.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.98%	10.73%	+3.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.62%	15.24%	+4.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.93%	20.14%	+2.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.52%	22.81%	+2.71%

TMFS vs. FSGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than FSGS's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMFS vs. FSGS - Dividend Comparison

Neither TMFS nor FSGS has 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%
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.34%	2.37%	5.57%	2.65%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFS and FSGS in my portfolio?

TMFS and FSGS have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMFS or FSGS?

TMFS has higher volatility (5.23%) compared to FSGS (3.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFS dropped -48.79% vs FSGS's -43.26%.

Which ETF is better, TMFS or FSGS?

On 5-year performance, FSGS leads with 2.19% vs -1.68% for TMFS. On fees, FSGS is cheaper at 0.60% 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, TMFS or FSGS?

Over the 5-year period, FSGS has performed better with a 2.19% return vs -1.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFS or FSGS?

FSGS is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFS.

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

TMFS and FSGS have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between TMFS and FSGS?

They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFS and 0.60% for FSGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FSGS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.32 vs -0.20), 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.