ACWV vs. QDF

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) and QDF (FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD), while QDF is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Northern Trust Quality Dividend Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ACWV returned 7.26%/yr vs 12.02%/yr for QDF. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ACWV charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.37%/yr for QDF.

Performance

ACWV vs. QDF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) and FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACWV achieves a 1.59% return, which is significantly lower than QDF's 8.98% return. Over the past 10 years, ACWV has underperformed QDF with an annualized return of 7.26%, while QDF has yielded a comparatively higher 12.02% annualized return.

ACWV

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.30%
• YTD: 1.59%
• 6M: 2.50%
• 1Y: 3.85%
• 3Y*: 9.71%
• 5Y*: 5.30%
• 10Y*: 7.26%

QDF

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: 1.09%
• YTD: 8.98%
• 6M: 9.09%
• 1Y: 24.82%
• 3Y*: 18.35%
• 5Y*: 11.54%
• 10Y*: 12.02%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ACWV vs. QDF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.59%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-10.36%	13.97%	3.04%	21.04%	-1.42%	18.57%
QDF FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund	8.98%	16.58%	16.95%	19.71%	-12.13%	26.65%	4.86%	25.71%	-7.97%	17.42%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWV and QDF is 0.61, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.61
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.66
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.76
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2012	0.79

The correlation between ACWV and QDF shifts across timeframes, from 0.61 (1 year) to 0.79 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ACWV vs. QDF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACWV	QDF
Technology	22.6%	38.3%
Healthcare	13.2%	8.3%
Financial Services	13.1%	13.2%
Communication Services	12.2%	6.8%
Consumer Defensive	10.3%	5.5%
Industrials	7.9%	8.9%
Utilities	7.8%	2.1%
Consumer Cyclical	5.1%	6.9%
Energy	3.4%	0.9%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.6%
Real Estate	0.8%	5.4%

Return for Risk

ACWV vs. QDF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 17
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 16
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 19

QDF

QDF Risk / Return Rank: 73
QDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
QDF Omega Ratio Rank: 72
QDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
QDF Martin Ratio Rank: 79

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ACWV vs. QDF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) and FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	ACWV	QDF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.50	2.12	-1.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.74	2.95	-2.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.39	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.61	3.16	-2.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.87	13.73	-11.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ACWV vs. QDF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWV Sharpe Ratio is 0.50, which is lower than the QDF Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWV and QDF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ACWV	QDF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50	2.12	-1.62
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52	0.74	-0.22
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.59	0.69	-0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.70	0.78	-0.07

Drawdowns

ACWV vs. QDF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWV drawdown since its inception was -28.82%, smaller than the maximum QDF drawdown of -36.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWV and QDF.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACWV	QDF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.82%	-36.67%	+7.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.37%	-7.90%	+1.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.56%	-18.01%	+10.45%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.14%	-22.06%	+3.92%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-28.82%	-36.67%	+7.85%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.64%	-2.10%	-1.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.11%	-3.64%	+0.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.06%	1.81%	+0.25%

Volatility

ACWV vs. QDF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) is 2.09%, while FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) has a volatility of 3.21%. This indicates that ACWV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QDF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACWV	QDF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.09%	3.21%	-1.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.66%	9.01%	-3.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.79%	11.78%	-3.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.24%	15.63%	-5.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.31%	17.41%	-5.10%

ACWV vs. QDF - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWV has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than QDF's 0.37% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACWV vs. QDF - Dividend Comparison

ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.05%, more than QDF's 1.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	2.05%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
QDF FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund	1.52%	1.65%	1.93%	2.19%	2.45%	1.90%	2.38%	3.05%	4.29%	2.70%	3.07%	3.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACWV and QDF in my portfolio?

ACWV and QDF have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ACWV or QDF?

QDF has higher volatility (3.21%) compared to ACWV (2.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACWV dropped -28.82% vs QDF's -36.67%.

Which ETF is better, ACWV or QDF?

On 10-year performance, QDF leads with 12.02% vs 7.26% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACWV or QDF?

Over the 10-year period, QDF has performed better with a 12.02% return vs 7.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACWV or QDF?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.37% for QDF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ACWV or QDF?

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 2.05%, compared with 1.52% for QDF.

What is the main difference between ACWV and QDF?

ACWV is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while QDF is Large Cap Value Equities. ACWV tracks MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD), while QDF tracks Northern Trust Quality Dividend Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and FlexShares. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for ACWV and 0.37% for QDF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 0.50), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.