ERASX vs. QCGDX

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ERASX (Eaton Vance Atlanta Capital SMID-Cap Fund Class A) and QCGDX (Quantified Common Ground Fund) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. Over the past 5 years, ERASX returned 3.64%/yr vs 9.08%/yr for QCGDX. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ERASX charges 0.81%/yr vs 1.68%/yr for QCGDX.

Performance

ERASX vs. QCGDX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Eaton Vance Atlanta Capital SMID-Cap Fund Class A (ERASX) and Quantified Common Ground Fund (QCGDX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ERASX achieves a -3.92% return, which is significantly lower than QCGDX's 16.84% return.

ERASX

• 1D: -0.72%
• 1M: -0.75%
• YTD: -3.92%
• 6M: -5.16%
• 1Y: -6.39%
• 3Y*: 6.49%
• 5Y*: 3.64%
• 10Y*: 10.65%

QCGDX

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.63%
• YTD: 16.84%
• 6M: 16.10%
• 1Y: 22.20%
• 3Y*: 12.91%
• 5Y*: 9.08%
• 10Y*: —

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

ERASX vs. QCGDX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ERASX Eaton Vance Atlanta Capital SMID-Cap Fund Class A	-3.92%	-5.59%	17.74%	14.08%	-8.72%	22.10%	11.40%	0.16%
QCGDX Quantified Common Ground Fund	16.84%	1.02%	9.87%	14.74%	-12.23%	32.19%	14.65%	0.10%

Correlation

The correlation between ERASX and QCGDX is 0.54, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.54
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.72
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 30, 2019	0.75

Over the past year, the correlation between ERASX and QCGDX has dropped to 0.54 - well below their long-term average of 0.75, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

ERASX vs. QCGDX — Risk / Return Rank

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

ERASX

ERASX Risk / Return Rank: 1
ERASX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
ERASX Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
ERASX Omega Ratio Rank: 2
ERASX Calmar Ratio Rank: 1
ERASX Martin Ratio Rank: 2

QCGDX

QCGDX Risk / Return Rank: 53
QCGDX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
QCGDX Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
QCGDX Omega Ratio Rank: 44
QCGDX Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
QCGDX Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

ERASX vs. QCGDX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Eaton Vance Atlanta Capital SMID-Cap Fund Class A (ERASX) and Quantified Common Ground Fund (QCGDX). 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.

	ERASX	QCGDX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.33	1.73	-2.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.38	2.41	-2.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.96	1.33	-0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.35	2.96	-3.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.66	13.27	-13.93

ERASX vs. QCGDX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ERASX Sharpe Ratio is -0.33, which is lower than the QCGDX Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ERASX and QCGDX, 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

ERASX vs. QCGDX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ERASX drawdown since its inception was -39.94%, which is greater than QCGDX's maximum drawdown of -22.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ERASX and QCGDX.

Drawdown Indicators

	ERASX	QCGDX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.94%	-22.37%	-17.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.63%	-7.92%	-6.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.36%	-16.10%	-3.26%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.77%	-20.18%	+0.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.94%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.51%	-1.40%	-13.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.09%	-6.10%	+1.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.78%	1.76%	+6.02%

Volatility

ERASX vs. QCGDX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Eaton Vance Atlanta Capital SMID-Cap Fund Class A (ERASX) is 4.30%, while Quantified Common Ground Fund (QCGDX) has a volatility of 7.34%. This indicates that ERASX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QCGDX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ERASX	QCGDX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.30%	7.34%	-3.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.47%	11.31%	+0.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.57%	13.58%	+1.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.08%	14.98%	+2.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.96%	16.61%	+2.35%

ERASX vs. QCGDX - Expense Ratio Comparison

ERASX has a 0.81% expense ratio, which is lower than QCGDX's 1.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

ERASX vs. QCGDX - Dividend Comparison

ERASX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.70%, more than QCGDX's 0.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ERASX Eaton Vance Atlanta Capital SMID-Cap Fund Class A	6.70%	6.44%	7.29%	2.82%	10.26%	10.40%	9.73%	13.15%	7.16%	3.29%	3.57%	6.68%
QCGDX Quantified Common Ground Fund	0.59%	0.69%	4.42%	0.22%	0.00%	5.44%	1.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ERASX and QCGDX in my portfolio?

ERASX and QCGDX have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ERASX or QCGDX?

QCGDX has higher volatility (7.34%) compared to ERASX (4.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ERASX dropped -39.94% vs QCGDX's -22.37%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCGDX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs -0.33), 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.