BELT vs. QLC

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

BELT (iShares U.S. Select Equity Active ETF) and QLC (FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - BELT is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by iShares, while QLC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Northern Trust Quality Large Cap Index. BELT is actively managed, while QLC is passively managed. Over the past year, BELT returned 22.26% vs 28.06% for QLC. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BELT charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for QLC.

Performance

BELT vs. QLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Select Equity Active ETF (BELT) and FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BELT achieves a 15.89% return, which is significantly higher than QLC's 9.54% return.

BELT

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: -0.57%
• YTD: 15.89%
• 6M: 14.46%
• 1Y: 22.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QLC

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.42%
• YTD: 9.54%
• 6M: 7.97%
• 1Y: 28.06%
• 3Y*: 23.94%
• 5Y*: 14.77%
• 10Y*: 14.85%

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

BELT vs. QLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BELT iShares U.S. Select Equity Active ETF	15.89%	12.42%	-1.87%
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	9.54%	23.26%	8.50%

Correlation

The correlation between BELT and QLC is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2024	0.87

The correlation between BELT and QLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

BELT vs. QLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BELT	QLC
Technology	35.7%	37.8%
Industrials	26.1%	6.3%
Communication Services	14.1%	13.0%
Financial Services	12.4%	13.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	7.8%
Healthcare	0.4%	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	0.2%	3.0%
Energy	0.2%	2.0%
Utilities	0.1%	3.1%
Real Estate	0.1%	2.1%
Basic Materials	0.1%	2.0%

Return for Risk

BELT vs. QLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BELT

BELT Risk / Return Rank: 42
BELT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
BELT Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
BELT Omega Ratio Rank: 37
BELT Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
BELT Martin Ratio Rank: 50

QLC

QLC Risk / Return Rank: 76
QLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
QLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
QLC Omega Ratio Rank: 75
QLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QLC Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

BELT vs. QLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Select Equity Active ETF (BELT) and FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC). 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.

	BELT	QLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	2.18	-0.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.81	3.01	-1.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.39	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.95	3.19	-1.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.50	14.45	-6.95

BELT vs. QLC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BELT Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is lower than the QLC Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BELT and QLC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BELT vs. QLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BELT drawdown since its inception was -23.05%, smaller than the maximum QLC drawdown of -35.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BELT and QLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BELT	QLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.05%	-35.86%	+12.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.47%	-8.84%	-2.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.49%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-23.81%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.29%	-2.38%	-0.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.49%	-4.52%	+1.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.97%	1.95%	+1.02%

Volatility

BELT vs. QLC - Volatility Comparison

iShares U.S. Select Equity Active ETF (BELT) has a higher volatility of 6.90% compared to FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) at 4.76%. This indicates that BELT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BELT	QLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.90%	4.76%	+2.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.87%	10.29%	+4.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.04%	12.95%	+5.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.42%	16.92%	+4.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.42%	18.45%	+2.97%

BELT vs. QLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BELT has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than QLC's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

BELT vs. QLC - Dividend Comparison

BELT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.02%, less than QLC's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BELT iShares U.S. Select Equity Active ETF	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	0.95%	0.94%	1.03%	1.26%	1.46%	0.96%	1.40%	1.91%	1.82%	1.29%	1.80%	0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BELT and QLC in my portfolio?

BELT and QLC have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BELT or QLC?

BELT has higher volatility (6.90%) compared to QLC (4.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BELT dropped -23.05% vs QLC's -35.86%.

Which ETF is better, BELT or QLC?

On 1-year performance, QLC leads with 28.06% vs 22.26% for BELT. On fees, QLC is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, QLC has been the lower-risk option at 4.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BELT or QLC?

Over the 1-year period, QLC has performed better with a 28.06% return vs 22.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BELT or QLC?

QLC is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for BELT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BELT or QLC?

QLC has the higher dividend yield at 0.95%, compared with 0.02% for BELT.

What is the main difference between BELT and QLC?

BELT is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while QLC is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Northern Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for BELT and 0.25% for QLC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 1.25), 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.