AGRW vs IQM
Allspring LT Large Growth ETF vs Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF
Which is better, AGRW or IQM?
IQM has been ahead.
AGRW has a lower expense ratio. IQM led over 1Y and the full window. IQM is less concentrated, with 43.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.5%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | AGRW | IQM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35%Best | 0.50% |
| AUM | $118M | $86M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.11% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 51 | 83 |
| YTD Return | +9.38% | +14.99%Best |
| 1Y Return | +10.78% | +16.23%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +31.88% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +15.66% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.3%Best | 30.4% |
| Max Drawdown | -16.5%Best | -25.3% |
| $10,000 over 1.5 years | $13,295 | $17,195Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 53.5% | 43.7%Best |
| Fund Family | Allspring Global Investments | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Mar 26, 2025 | Feb 25, 2020 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.5 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 27, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.5 years).
AGRW vs IQM growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 1.5 years both funds cover.
AGRW vs IQM Performance
Allspring LT Large Growth ETF (AGRW) is an ETF from Allspring Global Investments and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year AGRW returned +10.78% while IQM returned +16.23%. Year to date, AGRW is up 9.38% versus a gain of 14.99% for IQM.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IQM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.4% compared with 16.3% for AGRW. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -16.5% for AGRW and -25.3% for IQM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.71. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AGRW charges 0.35% per year while IQM charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $50 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AGRW currently yields 0.11% against 0.00% for IQM.
Holdings Overlap
41.2% of AGRW's money is in holdings IQM also owns. 28.2% of IQM's money is in holdings AGRW also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
12 positions in common, counted across the 47 positions we hold weights for in AGRW and 81 in IQM, against full books of 51 and 83.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 46 positions for IQM that do not appear in our book for AGRW (45.9% of the fund), and 33 for AGRW that do not appear in IQM (55.9%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in AGRW | Weight in IQM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 15.57% | 7.92% | 7.65% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.53% | 3.76% | 0.77% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.29% | 3.90% | 0.39% |
| GEVGe Vernova, Inc. | 2.63% | 3.09% | 0.46% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 3.05% | 2.55% | 0.50% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc Common Stock | 2.63% | 2.64% | 0.01% |
| APHAmphenol Corp. Class A | 1.75% | 1.37% | 0.38% |
| VRTVertiv Holdings Co | 1.45% | 1.27% | 0.18% |
| CDNSCadence Design Systems Inc. | 1.55% | 0.46% | 1.09% |
| CIENCiena Corp | 1.33% | 0.68% | 0.65% |
41.2% of AGRW is already inside IQM.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, AGRW or IQM?
AGRW has an expense ratio of 0.35% while IQM charges 0.50%. AGRW is the cheaper option, by $15 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, AGRW or IQM?
Over the past year AGRW returned +10.78% vs +16.23% for IQM, so IQM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), AGRW annualized +20.91% vs +43.53% for IQM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, AGRW or IQM?
IQM has been the more volatile fund at 30.4% annualized versus 16.3% for AGRW. Worst drawdown: AGRW -16.5% vs IQM -25.3%.
Should I hold both AGRW and IQM?
AGRW and IQM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.71, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between AGRW and IQM?
41.2% of AGRW's money is in holdings IQM also owns. 28.2% of IQM's is in holdings AGRW also owns. They hold 12 positions in common, counted across the 47 positions we hold weights for in AGRW and 81 in IQM.
Which pays a higher dividend, AGRW or IQM?
AGRW yields 0.11% while IQM yields 0.00%, so AGRW currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IQM better than AGRW?
AGRW has a lower expense ratio. IQM led over 1Y and the full window. IQM is less concentrated, with 43.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 53.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.