FLCC vs. VOTE

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FLCC (Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF) and VOTE (TCW Transform 500 ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. FLCC is actively managed, while VOTE is passively managed. Over the past year, FLCC returned 19.38% vs 23.13% for VOTE. Their correlation of 0.94 means they have usually moved in the same direction. FLCC charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for VOTE.

Performance

FLCC vs. VOTE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF (FLCC) and TCW Transform 500 ETF (VOTE). 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 FLCC having a 11.69% return and VOTE slightly higher at 11.82%.

FLCC

• 1D: 0.98%
• 1M: 2.73%
• 6M: 11.02%
• YTD: 11.69%
• 1Y: 19.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.45%

VOTE

• 1D: 1.62%
• 1M: 1.57%
• 6M: 9.83%
• YTD: 11.82%
• 1Y: 23.13%
• 3Y*: 21.15%
• 5Y*: 12.73%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.27%

*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)
FLCC Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF	$1.25M	$873.05K	$785.28K
VOTE TCW Transform 500 ETF	$1.89M	$1.67M	$2.43M

FLCC vs. VOTE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLCC Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF	11.69%	16.61%	9.68%
VOTE TCW Transform 500 ETF	11.82%	17.95%	9.28%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCC and VOTE is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 31, 2024	0.94

The correlation between FLCC and VOTE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLCC vs. VOTE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLCC	VOTE
Technology	38.2%	38.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.0%	9.5%
Financial Services	11.1%	11.5%
Healthcare	10.2%	9.0%
Industrials	10.1%	8.8%
Communication Services	8.6%	9.8%
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	4.4%
Energy	2.2%	3.0%
Basic Materials	1.8%	1.7%
Utilities	1.4%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.2%	1.7%

Return for Risk

FLCC vs. VOTE — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCC

FLCC Risk / Return Rank: 57
FLCC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
FLCC Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
FLCC Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FLCC Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
FLCC Martin Ratio Rank: 63

VOTE

VOTE Risk / Return Rank: 75
VOTE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
VOTE Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
VOTE Omega Ratio Rank: 73
VOTE Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
VOTE Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

FLCC vs. VOTE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF (FLCC) and TCW Transform 500 ETF (VOTE). 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.

	FLCC	VOTE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.48	1.78	-0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.07	2.46	-0.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.31	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.09	2.55	-0.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.09	10.80	-2.71

FLCC vs. VOTE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCC Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is comparable to the VOTE Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCC and VOTE, 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

FLCC vs. VOTE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCC drawdown since its inception was -19.18%, smaller than the maximum VOTE drawdown of -25.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCC and VOTE.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCC	VOTE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.18%	-25.71%	+6.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.31%	-9.10%	-0.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.08%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.71%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.28%	-6.00%	+3.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.40%	2.15%	+0.25%

Volatility

FLCC vs. VOTE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF (FLCC) is 3.23%, while TCW Transform 500 ETF (VOTE) has a volatility of 3.93%. This indicates that FLCC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VOTE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCC	VOTE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.23%	3.93%	-0.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.15%	10.39%	-0.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.16%	13.11%	+0.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.07%	17.22%	-0.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.07%	17.09%	-0.02%

FLCC vs. VOTE - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCC has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is higher than VOTE's 0.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCC vs. VOTE - Dividend Comparison

FLCC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.45%, less than VOTE's 0.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FLCC Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF	0.45%	0.50%	0.20%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VOTE TCW Transform 500 ETF	0.93%	1.03%	1.18%	1.33%	1.54%	0.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLCC and VOTE in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, FLCC and VOTE move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FLCC or VOTE?

VOTE has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to FLCC (3.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCC dropped -19.18% vs VOTE's -25.71%.

Which ETF is better, FLCC or VOTE?

On 1-year performance, VOTE leads with 23.13% vs 19.38% for FLCC. On fees, VOTE is cheaper at 0.05% per year. On volatility, FLCC has been the lower-risk option at 3.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCC or VOTE?

Over the 1-year period, VOTE has performed better with a 23.13% return vs 19.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCC or VOTE?

VOTE is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for FLCC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLCC or VOTE?

VOTE has the higher dividend yield at 0.93%, compared with 0.45% for FLCC.

What is the main difference between FLCC and VOTE?

They also come from different issuers: Federated and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for FLCC and 0.05% for VOTE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

VOTE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs 1.48), 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.