FGQD.L vs. JPLG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FGQD.L (Fidelity Global Quality Income ETF) and JPLG.L (JPMorgan Global Equity Multi-Factor UCITS ETF Accumulating) are both Global Equities funds - FGQD.L tracks the Fidelity Global Quality Income index while JPLG.L tracks the MSCI ACWI NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FGQD.L returned 11.86%/yr vs 10.40%/yr for JPLG.L. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FGQD.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for JPLG.L.

Performance

FGQD.L vs. JPLG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Fidelity Global Quality Income ETF (FGQD.L) and JPMorgan Global Equity Multi-Factor UCITS ETF Accumulating (JPLG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FGQD.L having a 10.28% return and JPLG.L slightly higher at 10.77%.

FGQD.L

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: 4.38%
• YTD: 10.28%
• 6M: 10.17%
• 1Y: 26.89%
• 3Y*: 14.75%
• 5Y*: 11.86%
• 10Y*: —

JPLG.L

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 3.40%
• YTD: 10.77%
• 6M: 11.42%
• 1Y: 22.95%
• 3Y*: 13.72%
• 5Y*: 10.40%
• 10Y*: —

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

FGQD.L vs. JPLG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FGQD.L Fidelity Global Quality Income ETF	10.28%	11.78%	13.21%	11.51%	-0.25%	23.78%	6.42%	1.60%
JPLG.L JPMorgan Global Equity Multi-Factor UCITS ETF Accumulating	10.77%	10.11%	12.09%	7.05%	0.72%	24.67%	2.57%	-0.56%

Correlation

The correlation between FGQD.L and JPLG.L is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 17, 2019	0.89

Over the past year, the correlation between FGQD.L and JPLG.L has dropped to 0.62 - well below their long-term average of 0.89, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FGQD.L vs. JPLG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FGQD.L	JPLG.L
Technology	30.7%	10.7%
Financial Services	15.9%	11.3%
Industrials	11.7%	10.5%
Healthcare	8.8%	12.2%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	7.9%
Communication Services	8.4%	5.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	8.4%
Energy	3.9%	8.4%
Basic Materials	3.0%	8.1%
Utilities	2.5%	9.3%
Real Estate	1.9%	7.5%

Return for Risk

FGQD.L vs. JPLG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FGQD.L

FGQD.L Risk / Return Rank: 86
FGQD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FGQD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
FGQD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
FGQD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
FGQD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 83

JPLG.L

JPLG.L Risk / Return Rank: 84
JPLG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
JPLG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
JPLG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 86
JPLG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
JPLG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

FGQD.L vs. JPLG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Global Quality Income ETF (FGQD.L) and JPMorgan Global Equity Multi-Factor UCITS ETF Accumulating (JPLG.L). 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.

	FGQD.L	JPLG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.01	2.90	+0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.09	3.98	+0.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.52	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.86	4.09	-0.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.82	15.27	+1.55
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FGQD.L vs. JPLG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FGQD.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.01, which is comparable to the JPLG.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FGQD.L and JPLG.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FGQD.L	JPLG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.01	2.90	+0.11
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.98	0.95	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.87	0.69	+0.17

Drawdowns

FGQD.L vs. JPLG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FGQD.L drawdown since its inception was -26.43%, roughly equal to the maximum JPLG.L drawdown of -27.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGQD.L and JPLG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FGQD.L	JPLG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.43%	-27.53%	+1.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.93%	-5.59%	-1.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.90%	-13.65%	-3.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.90%	-13.65%	-3.25%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.90%	-3.30%	+0.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.59%	1.50%	+0.09%

Volatility

FGQD.L vs. JPLG.L - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Global Quality Income ETF (FGQD.L) and JPMorgan Global Equity Multi-Factor UCITS ETF Accumulating (JPLG.L) have volatilities of 1.88% and 1.96%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FGQD.L	JPLG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.88%	1.96%	-0.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.37%	5.88%	+0.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.89%	7.87%	+1.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.07%	10.90%	+1.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.61%	13.75%	+0.86%

FGQD.L vs. JPLG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FGQD.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than JPLG.L's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

FGQD.L vs. JPLG.L - Dividend Comparison

FGQD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.81%, while JPLG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FGQD.L Fidelity Global Quality Income ETF	1.81%	1.87%	2.31%	2.78%	2.69%	2.46%	2.60%	2.44%	2.70%	1.56%
JPLG.L JPMorgan Global Equity Multi-Factor UCITS ETF Accumulating	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FGQD.L and JPLG.L in my portfolio?

FGQD.L and JPLG.L have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FGQD.L or JPLG.L?

On fees, JPLG.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FGQD.L or JPLG.L?

JPLG.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for FGQD.L.

What is the main difference between FGQD.L and JPLG.L?

FGQD.L tracks Fidelity Global Quality Income index, while JPLG.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for FGQD.L and 0.20% for JPLG.L.