IMCG ranks 2nd and FSGS 34th of 35 funds in the US Growth Index Category.
FSGS vs IMCG
IMCG −0.54pt a year
0.60%0.06%
IMCG 118.6×the volume
1.12K132K
IMCG +1.3pt
+4.2%+5.5%
FSGS vs IMCG Performance
+22.7%+30.8%
- FSGS 0.60%
- IMCG 0.06%, better
- FSGS $30M
- IMCG $4.04B
- FSGS +8.9%
- IMCG +14.0%, better
- FSGS 0.03%
- IMCG 0.67%, better
- FSGS 101
- IMCG 262
- FSGS 1.12K sh
- IMCG 132K sh, better
- FSGS $33.07
- IMCG $93.24
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | FSGS | IMCG |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | F6 | A78Higher |
| Mission | C50 | A95Higher |
| Risk | C54 | A78Higher |
| Tradability | D33 | B61Higher |
| Holdings | A75 | A75 |
| Durability | D28 | B66Higher |
Rank among US Growth Index funds
Same Category. FSGS and IMCG are both graded against the same 35 US Growth Index funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
FSGSD
IMCGA
In short
FSGS Growth only after the balance sheet passes inspection: FSGS screens small and mid caps for cash, low debt and double-digit return on equity, then ranks survivors on three-year revenue and cash flow growth. About 100 names, equally weighted.
IMCG Growth investing usually means megacaps. IMCG works the middle of the market instead: roughly 300 mid-cap growth names, indexed since 2004, for six basis points a year.
Stated mandate
FSGS The Fund seeks investment results that generally correspond to the price and yield of The SMID Growth Strength Index before fees and expenses.
IMCG The Fund seeks to track an index of U.S. mid-capitalization equities with growth characteristics. Its strategy uses representative sampling and generally invests at least 80% of assets in securities from the Underlying Index.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
FSGS vs IMCG Holdings
How we measure overlap
Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.
FSGS vs IMCG Cost
Overpaying FSGS vs IMCG
$10,547
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
FSGS 0.60%
$11,817
IMCG 0.06%
$1,270
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | FSGS | IMCG | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1,076 | $110 | $966 |
| 20 | $4,116 | $432 | $3,684 |
| 30 | $11,817 | $1,270 | $10,547 |
- 0.60%FSGS
- 0.06%IMCG, cheaper
- Middle half of US Growth Index funds
- Median 0.18%
IMCG 9th cheapest of 35 funds
FSGS 32nd cheapest of 35 funds
FSGS vs IMCG Dividends
- FSGS 0.03%
- IMCG 0.67%, better
- FSGS $0.01
- IMCG $0.62
- FSGS $0.01
- IMCG $0.19
- FSGS Jun 25, 2026
- IMCG Sep 15, 2026
- FSGS Jun 30, 2026
- IMCG Sep 18, 2026
- FSGS Irregular
- IMCG Quarterly
Distribution history
FSGS vs IMCG Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- FSGS
- IMCG
Risk facts
- Volatility
- FSGS 16.3%, betterIMCG 16.6%
- Return per unit of risk
- FSGS 0.52IMCG 0.97, better
- Worst fall
- FSGS −24.1%, betterIMCG −35.1%
- Market sensitivity
- FSGS 0.99IMCG 1.14
FSGS and IMCG in the news
Popular comparisons
- 0.60% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.06% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.60% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.06% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.60% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.06% · 0.04%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

