PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
AFLG vs. QUS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

AFLG vs. QUS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF (AFLG) and SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFLG achieves a 12.37% return, which is significantly higher than QUS's 6.67% return.


AFLG

1D
-0.53%
1M
3.98%
YTD
12.37%
6M
12.19%
1Y
24.98%
3Y*
22.74%
5Y*
12.91%
10Y*

QUS

1D
-0.43%
1M
2.68%
YTD
6.67%
6M
6.93%
1Y
17.65%
3Y*
17.53%
5Y*
11.08%
10Y*
13.67%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AFLG vs. QUS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
AFLG
First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF
12.37%14.23%27.02%20.10%-16.41%27.29%10.31%2.77%
QUS
SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF
6.67%14.13%18.99%21.78%-14.15%26.72%12.40%3.51%

Correlation

The correlation between AFLG and QUS is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.89

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.93

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 5, 2019

0.94

The correlation between AFLG and QUS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

AFLG vs. QUS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
AFLG
QUS

Technology

33.6%
26.3%

Consumer Cyclical

10.2%
5.8%

Communication Services

10.1%
10.2%

Financial Services

10.0%
14.6%

Industrials

9.4%
8.6%

Healthcare

7.8%
13.4%

Consumer Defensive

4.2%
9.2%

Utilities

4.1%
3.6%

Real Estate

3.8%
1.4%

Basic Materials

3.6%
2.3%

Energy

3.2%
4.6%

Technology

AFLG
33.6%
QUS
26.3%

Consumer Cyclical

AFLG
10.2%
QUS
5.8%

Communication Services

AFLG
10.1%
QUS
10.2%

Financial Services

AFLG
10.0%
QUS
14.6%

Industrials

AFLG
9.4%
QUS
8.6%

Healthcare

AFLG
7.8%
QUS
13.4%

Consumer Defensive

AFLG
4.2%
QUS
9.2%

Utilities

AFLG
4.1%
QUS
3.6%

Real Estate

AFLG
3.8%
QUS
1.4%

Basic Materials

AFLG
3.6%
QUS
2.3%

Energy

AFLG
3.2%
QUS
4.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

AFLG vs. QUS — Risk / Return Rank

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

AFLG
AFLG Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
AFLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AFLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
AFLG Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
AFLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6262
Calmar Ratio Rank
AFLG Martin Ratio Rank: 7474
Martin Ratio Rank

QUS
QUS Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
QUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
QUS Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
QUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
QUS Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

AFLG vs. QUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF (AFLG) and SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS). 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.


AFLGQUSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.24

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.27

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.35

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.06

2.59

+0.48

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.04

11.54

+2.50

AFLG vs. QUS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFLG Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is comparable to the QUS Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFLG and QUS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


AFLGQUSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.19

1.95

+0.24

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.82

0.78

+0.04

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.74

0.77

-0.03

Drawdowns

AFLG vs. QUS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFLG drawdown since its inception was -35.84%, which is greater than QUS's maximum drawdown of -33.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFLG and QUS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AFLGQUSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.84%

-33.78%

-2.06%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.19%

-6.85%

-1.34%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.49%

-13.94%

-3.55%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.48%

-22.30%

-1.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.78%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.53%

-0.50%

-0.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.71%

-3.70%

-2.01%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.78%

1.53%

+0.25%

Volatility

AFLG vs. QUS - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF (AFLG) has a higher volatility of 2.86% compared to SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS) at 1.78%. This indicates that AFLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QUS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AFLGQUSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.86%

1.78%

+1.08%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.81%

6.66%

+2.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.47%

9.09%

+2.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.82%

14.33%

+1.49%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.20%

16.42%

+2.78%

AFLG vs. QUS - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFLG has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than QUS's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

AFLG vs. QUS - Dividend Comparison

AFLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, less than QUS's 1.31% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AFLG
First Trust Active Factor Large Cap ETF
0.70%0.84%0.53%1.53%1.52%0.93%1.28%0.20%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
QUS
SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF
1.31%1.38%1.49%1.57%1.68%1.27%1.73%1.81%2.12%1.86%2.07%1.48%

Frequently Asked Questions


AFLG and QUS have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

AFLG has higher volatility (2.86%) compared to QUS (1.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFLG dropped -35.84% vs QUS's -33.78%.

On 5-year performance, AFLG leads with 12.91% vs 11.08% for QUS. On fees, QUS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, QUS has been the lower-risk option at 1.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, AFLG has performed better with a 12.91% return vs 11.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QUS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for AFLG.

QUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.31%, compared with 0.70% for AFLG.

AFLG tracks Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta U.S. Large Cap Equity Index, while QUS tracks MSCI USA Factor Mix A-Series Capped (USD). They also come from different issuers: First Trust and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for AFLG and 0.15% for QUS.

AFLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 1.95), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AFLG and QUS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer