TRFK vs. IQM

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

TRFK (Pacer Data and Digital Revolution ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TRFK is a Technology Equities fund tracking the Pacer Data Transmission and Communication Revolution Index - Benchmark TR Net, while IQM is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton. TRFK is passively managed, while IQM is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, TRFK returned 45.65%/yr vs 30.36%/yr for IQM. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TRFK charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

TRFK vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Data and Digital Revolution ETF (TRFK) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TRFK achieves a 53.11% return, which is significantly higher than IQM's 27.48% return.

TRFK

• 1D: 2.71%
• 1M: -3.00%
• 6M: 48.83%
• YTD: 53.11%
• 1Y: 65.34%
• 3Y*: 45.65%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IQM

• 1D: 2.19%
• 1M: -4.67%
• 6M: 16.81%
• YTD: 27.48%
• 1Y: 47.04%
• 3Y*: 30.36%
• 5Y*: 18.79%
• 10Y*: —

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

TRFK vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
TRFK Pacer Data and Digital Revolution ETF	53.11%	26.81%	38.30%	66.63%	-10.61%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	27.48%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-5.04%

Correlation

The correlation between TRFK and IQM is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2022	0.92

The correlation between TRFK and IQM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

TRFK vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TRFK	IQM
Technology	79.6%	67.6%
Industrials	11.2%	16.8%
Basic Materials	0.9%	-
Communication Services	0.7%	2.1%
Real Estate	0.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	3.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	2.9%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	1.0%
Utilities	-	3.4%

Return for Risk

TRFK vs. IQM — Risk / Return Rank

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

TRFK

TRFK Risk / Return Rank: 68
TRFK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
TRFK Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
TRFK Omega Ratio Rank: 65
TRFK Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
TRFK Martin Ratio Rank: 55

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 57
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 47
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

TRFK vs. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Data and Digital Revolution ETF (TRFK) 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.

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.

	TRFK	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	1.40	+0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.38	1.82	+0.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.25	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.36	3.21	+0.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.58	9.10	-1.52

TRFK vs. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TRFK Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is higher than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 1.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TRFK 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.

Drawdowns

TRFK vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TRFK drawdown since its inception was -29.06%, smaller than the maximum IQM drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TRFK and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	TRFK	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.06%	-44.91%	+15.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.56%	-14.71%	-4.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.06%	-30.42%	+1.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.77%	-11.52%	-0.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.09%	-12.15%	+6.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.65%	5.18%	+3.47%

Volatility

TRFK vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Data and Digital Revolution ETF (TRFK) has a higher volatility of 17.46% compared to Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) at 16.19%. This indicates that TRFK's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IQM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TRFK	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.46%	16.19%	+1.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.48%	28.77%	+0.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	34.39%	33.72%	+0.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.37%	30.10%	+0.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.37%	31.38%	-1.01%

TRFK vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

TRFK has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

TRFK vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

TRFK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, while IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.17%	0.01%
TRFK Pacer Data and Digital Revolution ETF	0.01%	0.01%	0.40%	0.20%	0.56%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TRFK and IQM in my portfolio?

TRFK and IQM have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TRFK or IQM?

TRFK has higher volatility (17.46%) compared to IQM (16.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TRFK dropped -29.06% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, TRFK or IQM?

On 3-year performance, TRFK leads with 45.65% vs 30.36% for IQM. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, IQM has been the lower-risk option at 16.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TRFK or IQM?

Over the 3-year period, TRFK has performed better with a 45.65% return vs 30.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TRFK or IQM?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for TRFK.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TRFK or IQM?

TRFK has the higher dividend yield at 0.01%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between TRFK and IQM?

TRFK is categorized as Technology Equities, while IQM is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for TRFK and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TRFK currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.40), 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.