IQM vs IWFG
Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF vs NYLIM Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF
Which is better, IQM or IWFG?
IQM has been ahead.
IWFG has a lower expense ratio. IQM led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. IQM is less concentrated, with 43.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.2%.
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 | IQM | IWFG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50% | 0.46%Best |
| AUM | $86M | $27M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 83 | 58 |
| YTD Return | +14.99%Best | +3.74% |
| 1Y Return | +16.23%Best | +3.78% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +31.88%Best | +22.23% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.66% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 27.2% | 18.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -30.4% | -22.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 4.3 years | $29,258Best | $23,226 |
| Top 10 Weight | 43.7%Best | 64.2% |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | New York Life Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Feb 25, 2020 | Jun 22, 2022 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 4.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 23, 2022 to Oct 14, 2026 (4.3 years).
IQM vs IWFG 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 4.3 years both funds cover.
IQM vs IWFG Performance
Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and NYLIM Winslow Focused Large Cap Growth ETF (IWFG) is an ETF from New York Life Investments. Over the past year IQM returned +16.23% while IWFG returned +3.78%. Year to date, IQM is up 14.99% versus a gain of 3.74% for IWFG.
Over three years, IQM compounded at +31.88% per year against +22.23% for IWFG. Across the full 4-year window we track, IQM has the edge at +28.36% annualized vs +21.65%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IQM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 27.2% compared with 18.1% for IWFG. 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 -30.4% for IQM and -22.0% for IWFG. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.85. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
IQM charges 0.50% per year while IWFG charges 0.46%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $46 annually, a gap of $4 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, IQM currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for IWFG.
Holdings Overlap
31.8% of IQM's money is in holdings IWFG also owns. 44.7% of IWFG's money is in holdings IQM also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
12 positions in common, counted across the 81 positions we hold weights for in IQM and 27 in IWFG, against full books of 83 and 58.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 15 positions for IWFG that do not appear in our book for IQM (54.7% of the fund), and 47 for IQM that do not appear in IWFG (44.1%).
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 IQM | Weight in IWFG | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.92% | 14.99% | 7.07% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 3.76% | 5.46% | 1.70% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.90% | 3.71% | 0.19% |
| SNDKVSandisk Corp. | 4.48% | 1.92% | 2.56% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc | 2.64% | 3.58% | 0.94% |
| STXSeagate Technolo | 1.36% | 4.48% | 3.12% |
| LITELumentum Holdings Inc | 2.12% | 1.87% | 0.25% |
| ASL:ASAsml Holding Nv Unsponsored Adr Ordinary Shares | 1.73% | 2.08% | 0.35% |
| APHAmphenol Corp. Class A | 1.37% | 1.94% | 0.57% |
| ADIAnalog Devices, Inc. | 0.10% | 2.95% | 2.85% |
44.7% of IWFG 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, IQM or IWFG?
IQM has an expense ratio of 0.50% while IWFG charges 0.46%. IWFG is the cheaper option, by $4 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, IQM or IWFG?
Over the past year IQM returned +16.23% vs +3.78% for IWFG, so IQM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), IQM annualized +28.36% vs +21.65% for IWFG. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, IQM or IWFG?
IQM has been the more volatile fund at 27.2% annualized versus 18.1% for IWFG. Worst drawdown: IQM -30.4% vs IWFG -22.0%.
Should I hold both IQM and IWFG?
IQM and IWFG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.85, 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 IQM and IWFG?
44.7% of IWFG's money is in holdings IQM also owns. 44.7% of IWFG's is in holdings IQM also owns. They hold 12 positions in common, counted across the 81 positions we hold weights for in IQM and 27 in IWFG.
Which pays a higher dividend, IQM or IWFG?
IQM yields 0.00% while IWFG yields 0.00%, so IWFG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWFG better than IQM?
IWFG has a lower expense ratio. IQM led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. IQM is less concentrated, with 43.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 64.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.