TMFS vs. MFIG
TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) and MFIG (Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TMFS is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Motley Fool, while MFIG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Motley Fool Innovative Growth Index. TMFS is actively managed, while MFIG is passively managed. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TMFS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for MFIG.
Performance
TMFS vs. MFIG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMFS achieves a -4.69% return, which is significantly lower than MFIG's 4.31% return.
TMFS
- 1D
- -1.11%
- 1M
- -3.92%
- YTD
- -4.69%
- 6M
- -6.04%
- 1Y
- -3.97%
- 3Y*
- 6.32%
- 5Y*
- -1.68%
- 10Y*
- —
MFIG
- 1D
- -1.31%
- 1M
- 6.47%
- YTD
- 4.31%
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TMFS vs. MFIG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | -4.69% | -1.11% |
MFIG Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF | 4.31% | -0.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMFS and MFIG is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 10, 2025 | 0.65 |
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
TMFS vs. MFIG — Risk / Return Rank
TMFS
MFIG
TMFS vs. MFIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF (MFIG). 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 | MFIG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.98 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.25 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.70 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| TMFS | MFIG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.20 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.07 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.32 | 0.53 | -0.21 |
Drawdowns
TMFS vs. MFIG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMFS drawdown since its inception was -48.79%, which is greater than MFIG's maximum drawdown of -14.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFS and MFIG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMFS | MFIG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.79% | -14.29% | -34.50% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.73% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.05% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.68% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -22.78% | -2.15% | -20.63% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.47% | -4.63% | -14.84% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.68% | — | — |
Volatility
TMFS vs. MFIG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TMFS | MFIG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.23% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.98% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.62% | 16.58% | +3.04% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.93% | 16.58% | +6.35% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.52% | 16.58% | +8.94% |
TMFS vs. MFIG - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than MFIG's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMFS vs. MFIG - Dividend Comparison
Neither TMFS nor MFIG has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MFIG Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.34% | 2.37% | 5.57% | 2.65% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMFS and MFIG have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, MFIG is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MFIG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFS.
TMFS and MFIG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
TMFS is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while MFIG is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFS and 0.50% for MFIG.
Find the right allocation for TMFS and MFIG
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