FLQM vs IWR
Franklin US Mid Cap Multifactor Index ETF vs iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF
Which is better, FLQM or IWR?
Nearly the same fund. IWR costs less.
IWR has a lower expense ratio. FLQM led over the full window, IWR over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWR is less concentrated, with 7.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 11.5%.
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 | FLQM | IWR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.30% | 0.18%Best |
| AUM | $1.4B | $56.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.71% | 1.19% |
| Holdings | 210 | 825 |
| YTD Return | +4.87% | +12.13%Best |
| 1Y Return | +5.37% | +14.18%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +12.15% | +17.55%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.76% | +7.30%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.8%Best | 17.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -37.3%Best | -40.6% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $13,869 | $14,223Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 11.5% | 7.0%Best |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Mid Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 26, 2017 | Jul 17, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 28, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (9.5 years).
FLQM vs IWR 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 9.5 years both funds cover.
FLQM vs IWR Performance
Franklin US Mid Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQM) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF (IWR) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FLQM returned +5.37% while IWR returned +14.18%. Year to date, FLQM is up 4.87% versus a gain of 12.13% for IWR.
Over three years, FLQM compounded at +12.15% per year against +17.55% for IWR; over five years the annualized figures are +6.76% and +7.30% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, FLQM has the edge at +10.63% annualized vs +10.06%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.9% compared with 16.8% for FLQM. 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 -37.3% for FLQM and -40.6% for IWR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FLQM charges 0.30% per year while IWR charges 0.18%. On a $10,000 position that is $30 vs $18 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLQM currently yields 1.71% against 1.19% for IWR.
Holdings Overlap
98.8% of FLQM's money is in holdings IWR also owns. 24.4% of IWR's money is in holdings FLQM also owns.
Most of FLQM is already inside IWR. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
202 positions in common, counted across the 205 positions we hold weights for in FLQM and 823 in IWR, against full books of 210 and 825.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 593 positions for IWR that do not appear in our book for FLQM (72.8% of the fund), and 1 for FLQM that do not appear in IWR (0.1%).
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 FLQM | Weight in IWR | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NTAPNetapp Inc | 1.29% | 0.32% | 0.97% |
| TERTeradyne Inc - Common | 1.13% | 0.48% | 0.65% |
| CORCencora Inc | 1.14% | 0.43% | 0.71% |
| FASTFastenal Co. | 1.14% | 0.43% | 0.71% |
| GRMNGarminltd. | 1.19% | 0.35% | 0.84% |
| ALLAllstate Corp. | 1.08% | 0.43% | 0.65% |
| DVNDevon Energy Corp. | 1.06% | 0.40% | 0.66% |
| GWWWw Grainger Inc. | 1.03% | 0.41% | 0.62% |
| WATWaters Corp. | 1.10% | 0.31% | 0.79% |
| PRUPrudential Financial Inc | 1.11% | 0.29% | 0.82% |
98.8% of FLQM is already inside IWR.
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, FLQM or IWR?
FLQM has an expense ratio of 0.30% while IWR charges 0.18%. IWR is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLQM or IWR?
Over the past year FLQM returned +5.37% vs +14.18% for IWR, so IWR leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), FLQM annualized +10.63% vs +10.06% for IWR. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLQM or IWR?
IWR has been the more volatile fund at 17.9% annualized versus 16.8% for FLQM. Worst drawdown: FLQM -37.3% vs IWR -40.6%.
Should I hold both FLQM and IWR?
FLQM and IWR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FLQM and IWR?
98.8% of FLQM's money is in holdings IWR also owns. 24.4% of IWR's is in holdings FLQM also owns. They hold 202 positions in common, counted across the 205 positions we hold weights for in FLQM and 823 in IWR.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLQM or IWR?
FLQM yields 1.71% while IWR yields 1.19%, so FLQM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWR better than FLQM?
IWR has a lower expense ratio. FLQM led over the full window, IWR over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWR is less concentrated, with 7.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 11.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.