PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CHGX vs. QWLD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CHGX vs. QWLD

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

CHGX (Stance Sustainable Beta ETF) and QWLD (SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - CHGX tracks the Change Finance Diversified Impact U.S. Large Cap Fossil Fuel Free Index while QWLD tracks the MSCI World Factor Mix A-Series (USD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CHGX returned 9.09%/yr vs 10.03%/yr for QWLD. Their correlation of 0.83 means they have usually moved in the same direction. CHGX charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for QWLD.

Performance

CHGX vs. QWLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Stance Sustainable Beta ETF (CHGX) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CHGX achieves a 19.57% return, which is significantly higher than QWLD's 9.39% return.

CHGX

1D
-0.06%
1M
-0.88%
6M
16.02%
YTD
19.57%
1Y
26.43%
3Y*
17.27%
5Y*
9.09%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
13.17%

QWLD

1D
0.22%
1M
1.63%
6M
6.46%
YTD
9.39%
1Y
19.11%
3Y*
15.49%
5Y*
10.03%
10Y*
11.57%
ALL TIME*
10.49%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

CHGX

Stance Sustainable Beta ETF
$397.74K$582.66K$623.16K

QWLD

SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF
$231.12K$297.84K$1.04M

CHGX vs. QWLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CHGX
Stance Sustainable Beta ETF		19.57%12.13%15.16%23.65%-21.77%22.72%24.10%33.07%-5.79%4.22%
QWLD
SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF		9.39%17.93%14.44%19.59%-13.30%21.57%10.24%27.59%-7.02%5.14%

Correlation

The correlation between CHGX and QWLD is 0.78, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.78

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.86

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.90

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 10, 2017

0.83

The correlation between CHGX and QWLD shifts across timeframes, from 0.78 (1 year) to 0.90 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CHGX vs. QWLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CHGX
QWLD

Technology

33.8%
24.9%

Financial Services

18.7%
16.5%

Healthcare

14.7%
13.2%

Consumer Cyclical

11.0%
6.3%

Communication Services

8.0%
9.5%

Real Estate

4.1%
1.0%

Industrials

3.8%
10.9%

Consumer Defensive

2.9%
8.1%

Energy

1.0%
3.4%

Utilities

1.0%
3.8%

Basic Materials

0.9%
2.5%

Technology

CHGX
33.8%
QWLD
24.9%

Financial Services

CHGX
18.7%
QWLD
16.5%

Healthcare

CHGX
14.7%
QWLD
13.2%

Consumer Cyclical

CHGX
11.0%
QWLD
6.3%

Communication Services

CHGX
8.0%
QWLD
9.5%

Real Estate

CHGX
4.1%
QWLD
1.0%

Industrials

CHGX
3.8%
QWLD
10.9%

Consumer Defensive

CHGX
2.9%
QWLD
8.1%

Energy

CHGX
1.0%
QWLD
3.4%

Utilities

CHGX
1.0%
QWLD
3.8%

Basic Materials

CHGX
0.9%
QWLD
2.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Stance Sustainable Beta ETF

SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF

Often compared with CHGX:
CHGX vs. SPYXCHGX vs. IFEDCHGX vs. SUSACHGX vs. FBTCCHGX vs. BSJOCHGX vs. SCHDCHGX vs. VOO
Often compared with QWLD:
QWLD vs. URTHQWLD vs. DGTQWLD vs. SPGMQWLD vs. VTQWLD vs. VWICXQWLD vs. JPGL.LQWLD vs. QVML

Return for Risk

CHGX vs. QWLD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
CHGX
CHGX Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
CHGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CHGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
CHGX Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
CHGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
CHGX Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
QWLD
QWLD Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
QWLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QWLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
QWLD Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
QWLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
QWLD Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CHGX vs. QWLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Stance Sustainable Beta ETF (CHGX) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). 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.

CHGXQWLDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.72
1.93

-0.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.41
2.75

-0.33

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.34

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.97

2.44

+0.53

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.60

10.67

-0.07

CHGX vs. QWLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CHGX Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is comparable to the QWLD Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CHGX and QWLD, 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...

Drawdowns

CHGX vs. QWLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CHGX drawdown since its inception was -35.49%, which is greater than QWLD's maximum drawdown of -31.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CHGX and QWLD.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CHGXQWLDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.49%

-31.89%

-3.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.50%

-7.66%

-0.84%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.09%

-12.40%

-5.69%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.26%

-22.84%

-7.42%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-31.89%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.00%

0.00%

-3.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.36%

-3.66%

-2.70%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.38%

1.75%

+0.63%

Volatility

CHGX vs. QWLD - Volatility Comparison

Stance Sustainable Beta ETF (CHGX) has a higher volatility of 3.43% compared to SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD) at 2.30%. This indicates that CHGX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QWLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CHGXQWLDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.43%

2.30%

+1.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.75%

7.73%

+4.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.75%

9.71%

+5.04%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.71%

13.51%

+4.20%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.30%

15.12%

+4.18%

CHGX vs. QWLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

CHGX has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than QWLD's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

CHGX vs. QWLD - Dividend Comparison

CHGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, less than QWLD's 1.79% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CHGX
Stance Sustainable Beta ETF		0.56%0.67%0.76%0.94%1.11%0.56%0.58%0.86%0.00%0.59%0.00%0.00%
QWLD
SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF		1.79%1.85%1.74%1.78%2.02%1.77%1.77%2.13%2.33%2.73%2.22%3.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

CHGX and QWLD have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CHGX has higher volatility (3.43%) compared to QWLD (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CHGX dropped -35.49% vs QWLD's -31.89%.

On 5-year performance, QWLD leads with 10.03% vs 9.09% for CHGX. On fees, QWLD is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, QWLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, QWLD has performed better with a 10.03% return vs 9.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QWLD is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for CHGX.

QWLD has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 0.56% for CHGX.

CHGX tracks Change Finance Diversified Impact U.S. Large Cap Fossil Fuel Free Index, while QWLD tracks MSCI World Factor Mix A-Series (USD). They also come from different issuers: Stance and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for CHGX and 0.30% for QWLD.

QWLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs 1.72), 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 CHGX and QWLD

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