ARWG vs. QUS
ARWG (Archer Growth ETF) and QUS (SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. ARWG is actively managed, while QUS is passively managed. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ARWG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for QUS.
Performance
ARWG vs. QUS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ARWG achieves a 6.08% return, which is significantly lower than QUS's 9.19% return.
ARWG
- 1D
- -1.43%
- 1M
- 0.69%
- 6M
- 4.27%
- YTD
- 6.08%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QUS
- 1D
- 0.67%
- 1M
- 1.45%
- 6M
- 7.49%
- YTD
- 9.19%
- 1Y
- 17.93%
- 3Y*
- 16.72%
- 5Y*
- 11.09%
- 10Y*
- 13.49%
ARWG vs. QUS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ARWG Archer Growth ETF | 6.08% | -0.95% |
QUS SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF | 9.19% | -0.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between ARWG and QUS is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 30, 2025 | 0.49 |
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
ARWG vs. QUS — Risk / Return Rank
ARWG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
QUS
ARWG vs. QUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Archer Growth ETF (ARWG) 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| ARWG | QUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.36 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.63 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 11.61 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ARWG vs. QUS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ARWG drawdown since its inception was -12.79%, smaller than the maximum QUS drawdown of -33.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ARWG and QUS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ARWG | QUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.79% | -33.78% | +20.99% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -6.85% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -13.94% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -22.30% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -33.78% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.27% | 0.00% | -3.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.20% | -3.67% | +0.47% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.55% | — |
Volatility
ARWG vs. QUS - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ARWG | QUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 2.38% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 6.95% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.46% | 9.12% | +14.34% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.46% | 14.34% | +9.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.46% | 16.38% | +7.08% |
ARWG vs. QUS - Expense Ratio Comparison
ARWG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than QUS's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
ARWG vs. QUS - Dividend Comparison
ARWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than QUS's 1.28% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ARWG Archer Growth ETF | 0.13% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
QUS SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF | 1.28% | 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
ARWG and QUS have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, QUS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
QUS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for ARWG.
QUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 0.13% for ARWG.
They also come from different issuers: Archer Funds and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for ARWG and 0.15% for QUS.
Find the right allocation for ARWG 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