EQLT vs. ROE

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EQLT (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF) and ROE (Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF) are both Quality Factor funds. EQLT is passively managed, while ROE is actively managed. Over the past year, EQLT returned 44.38% vs 33.36% for ROE. Their 0.64 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EQLT charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for ROE.

Performance

EQLT vs. ROE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF (EQLT) and Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQLT achieves a 22.86% return, which is significantly higher than ROE's 20.35% return.

EQLT

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: -1.35%
• 6M: 14.71%
• YTD: 22.86%
• 1Y: 44.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 29.13%

ROE

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: 0.63%
• 6M: 16.21%
• YTD: 20.35%
• 1Y: 33.36%
• 3Y*: 20.30%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 20.32%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EQLT iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF	$77.09K	$55.23K	$122.39K
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	$1.20M	$1.18M	$910.23K

EQLT vs. ROE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EQLT iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF	22.86%	33.93%	-1.29%
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	20.35%	17.20%	3.30%

Correlation

The correlation between EQLT and ROE is 0.75, 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.	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 6, 2024	0.64

The correlation between EQLT and ROE shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (all time) to 0.75 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EQLT vs. ROE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EQLT	ROE
Technology	34.8%	33.9%
Financial Services	19.5%	11.9%
Industrials	11.4%	9.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.2%	11.0%
Basic Materials	6.5%	1.0%
Communication Services	5.2%	11.1%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	4.9%
Energy	3.5%	2.9%
Healthcare	3.3%	10.2%
Utilities	1.8%	2.0%
Real Estate	0.9%	2.0%

Return for Risk

EQLT vs. ROE — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

EQLT

EQLT Risk / Return Rank: 81
EQLT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
EQLT Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
EQLT Omega Ratio Rank: 79
EQLT Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
EQLT Martin Ratio Rank: 81

ROE

ROE Risk / Return Rank: 88
ROE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
ROE Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
ROE Omega Ratio Rank: 85
ROE Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
ROE Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

EQLT vs. ROE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF (EQLT) and Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE). 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.

	EQLT	ROE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	2.14	-0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	2.88	-0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.37	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.61	3.72	-0.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.91	15.82	-4.91

EQLT vs. ROE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQLT Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is comparable to the ROE Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQLT and ROE, 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

EQLT vs. ROE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQLT drawdown since its inception was -17.38%, smaller than the maximum ROE drawdown of -19.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQLT and ROE.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQLT	ROE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.38%	-19.10%	+1.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.00%	-8.66%	-3.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.10%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.36%	-1.30%	-7.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.81%	-2.54%	-1.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.96%	2.03%	+1.93%

Volatility

EQLT vs. ROE - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF (EQLT) has a higher volatility of 5.98% compared to Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE) at 3.59%. This indicates that EQLT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ROE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQLT	ROE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.98%	3.59%	+2.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.15%	11.81%	+9.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.39%	15.07%	+8.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.25%	15.87%	+5.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.25%	15.87%	+5.38%

EQLT vs. ROE - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQLT has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than ROE's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQLT vs. ROE - Dividend Comparison

EQLT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.85%, more than ROE's 1.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EQLT iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF	2.85%	3.10%	0.51%	0.00%
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	1.01%	0.97%	1.18%	0.68%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EQLT and ROE in my portfolio?

EQLT and ROE have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EQLT or ROE?

EQLT has higher volatility (5.98%) compared to ROE (3.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EQLT dropped -17.38% vs ROE's -19.10%.

Which ETF is better, EQLT or ROE?

On 1-year performance, EQLT leads with 44.38% vs 33.36% for ROE. On fees, EQLT is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, ROE has been the lower-risk option at 3.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EQLT or ROE?

Over the 1-year period, EQLT has performed better with a 44.38% return vs 33.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EQLT or ROE?

EQLT is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ROE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EQLT or ROE?

EQLT has the higher dividend yield at 2.85%, compared with 1.01% for ROE.

What is the main difference between EQLT and ROE?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Astoria. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EQLT and 0.49% for ROE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ROE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 1.85), 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.