FLQS vs IWM
Franklin US Small Cap Multifactor Index ETF vs iShares Russell 2000 ETF
Which is better, FLQS or IWM?
Nearly the same fund. IWM costs less.
IWM has a lower expense ratio. FLQS led over 5Y and the full window, IWM over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 9.7%.
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 | FLQS | IWM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.35% | 0.19%Best |
| AUM | $50M | $76.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.57% | 0.98% |
| Holdings | 497 | 1,972 |
| YTD Return | +9.82%Tie | +9.82%Tie |
| 1Y Return | +9.87% | +10.58%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +12.65% | +17.51%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +5.25%Best | +5.03% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 18.6%Best | 21.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -42.2%Best | -42.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $12,915Best | $12,781 |
| Top 10 Weight | 9.7% | 3.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 26, 2017 | May 22, 2000 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 28, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (9.5 years).
FLQS vs IWM 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.
FLQS vs IWM Performance
Franklin US Small Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQS) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and iShares Russell 2000 ETF (IWM) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year FLQS returned +9.87% while IWM returned +10.58%. Year to date, FLQS is up 9.82% versus a gain of 9.82% for IWM.
Over three years, FLQS compounded at +12.65% per year against +17.51% for IWM; over five years the annualized figures are +5.25% and +5.03% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, FLQS has the edge at +8.12% annualized vs +8.10%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
IWM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.2% compared with 18.6% for FLQS. 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 -42.2% for FLQS and -42.3% for IWM. 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
FLQS charges 0.35% per year while IWM charges 0.19%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $19 annually, a gap of $16 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLQS currently yields 1.57% against 0.98% for IWM.
Holdings Overlap
97.0% of FLQS's money is in holdings IWM also owns. 27.5% of IWM's money is in holdings FLQS also owns.
Most of FLQS is already inside IWM. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
479 positions in common, counted across the 491 positions we hold weights for in FLQS and 1,973 in IWM, against full books of 497 and 1,972.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,258 positions for IWM that do not appear in our book for FLQS (69.7% of the fund), and 7 for FLQS that do not appear in IWM (1.3%).
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 FLQS | Weight in IWM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MOG.AMoog Inccommon Stock | 1.04% | 0.37% | 0.67% |
| IDCCInterdigital Inc | 1.00% | 0.30% | 0.70% |
| QLYSQualys Inc | 1.04% | 0.22% | 0.82% |
| PTGXProtagonist Therapeutics Inc | 0.97% | 0.29% | 0.68% |
| ANFAbercrombie & Fitch Co. Class A | 1.00% | 0.20% | 0.80% |
| FCFSFirstcash Inc | 0.91% | 0.29% | 0.62% |
| ALKS:IEAlkermes Plc. Ordinary Shares | 0.94% | 0.23% | 0.71% |
| CVLTCommvaultsystems Inc. | 0.95% | 0.21% | 0.74% |
| CTRECaretrust Reit Inc Reit Usd.01 | 0.85% | 0.29% | 0.56% |
| ESEEsco Technologies Inc | 0.89% | 0.24% | 0.65% |
97.0% of FLQS is already inside IWM.
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, FLQS or IWM?
FLQS has an expense ratio of 0.35% while IWM charges 0.19%. IWM is the cheaper option, by $16 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLQS or IWM?
Over the past year FLQS returned +9.87% vs +10.58% for IWM, so IWM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), FLQS annualized +8.12% vs +8.10% for IWM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLQS or IWM?
IWM has been the more volatile fund at 21.2% annualized versus 18.6% for FLQS. Worst drawdown: FLQS -42.2% vs IWM -42.3%.
Should I hold both FLQS and IWM?
FLQS and IWM 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 FLQS and IWM?
97.0% of FLQS's money is in holdings IWM also owns. 27.5% of IWM's is in holdings FLQS also owns. They hold 479 positions in common, counted across the 491 positions we hold weights for in FLQS and 1,973 in IWM.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLQS or IWM?
FLQS yields 1.57% while IWM yields 0.98%, so FLQS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is IWM better than FLQS?
IWM has a lower expense ratio. FLQS led over 5Y and the full window, IWM over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. IWM is less concentrated, with 3.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 9.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.