IMCG ranks 2nd and FTGS 28th of 35 funds in the US Growth Index Category.
FTGS vs IMCG
IMCG −0.54pt a year
0.60%0.06%
IMCG 1.1×the volume
115K132K
IMCG +3.2pt
+17.8%+21.0%
FTGS vs IMCG Performance
+5.2%+14.0%
- FTGS 0.60%
- IMCG 0.06%, better
- FTGS $1.27B
- IMCG $4.04B
- FTGS +5.2%
- IMCG +14.0%, better
- FTGS 0.04%
- IMCG 0.67%, better
- FTGS 51
- IMCG 262
- FTGS 115K sh
- IMCG 132K sh, better
- FTGS $37.48
- IMCG $93.24
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | FTGS | IMCG |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | F6 | A78Higher |
| Mission | A76 | A95Higher |
| Risk | A70 | A78Higher |
| Tradability | D39 | B61Higher |
| Holdings | B68 | A75Higher |
| Durability | D38 | B66Higher |
Rank among US Growth Index funds
Same Category. FTGS 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
FTGSC
IMCGA
In short
FTGS Growth with a credit check. FTGS holds about 50 US names that clear screens for return on equity, long-term debt against cash, and revenue and cash flow growth. Growth that funds itself, rather than borrows for it.
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
FTGS The Fund seeks results generally corresponding to the price and yield, before fees and expenses, of The Growth StrengthTM Index. Normally, it invests at least 80% of net assets in the common stocks and REITs comprising that Index.
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
FTGS 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.
FTGS vs IMCG Cost
Overpaying FTGS vs IMCG
$10,547
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
FTGS 0.60%
$11,817
IMCG 0.06%
$1,270
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | FTGS | IMCG | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1,076 | $110 | $966 |
| 20 | $4,116 | $432 | $3,684 |
| 30 | $11,817 | $1,270 | $10,547 |
- 0.60%FTGS
- 0.06%IMCG, cheaper
- Middle half of US Growth Index funds
- Median 0.18%
IMCG 9th cheapest of 35 funds
FTGS 32nd cheapest of 35 funds
FTGS vs IMCG Dividends
- FTGS 0.04%
- IMCG 0.67%, better
- FTGS $0.01
- IMCG $0.62
- FTGS $0.0088
- IMCG $0.19
- FTGS Sep 24, 2026
- IMCG Sep 15, 2026
- FTGS Sep 30, 2026
- IMCG Sep 18, 2026
- FTGS Twice a year
- IMCG Quarterly
Distribution history
FTGS vs IMCG Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
Risk facts
- Volatility
- FTGS 13.8%, betterIMCG 16.6%
- Return per unit of risk
- FTGS 0.94IMCG 0.97, better
- Worst fall
- FTGS −20.0%IMCG −35.1%
- Market sensitivity
- FTGS 1.02IMCG 1.14
FTGS 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.

