FLMFX vs. QMLFX

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FLMFX (Meeder Muirfield Fund) and QMLFX (Quantified Market Leaders Fund) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Over the past 10 years, FLMFX returned 12.23%/yr vs 11.00%/yr for QMLFX. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLMFX charges 1.20%/yr vs 1.30%/yr for QMLFX.

Performance

FLMFX vs. QMLFX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Meeder Muirfield Fund (FLMFX) and Quantified Market Leaders Fund (QMLFX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLMFX achieves a 10.81% return, which is significantly lower than QMLFX's 21.38% return. Over the past 10 years, FLMFX has outperformed QMLFX with an annualized return of 12.23%, while QMLFX has yielded a comparatively lower 11.00% annualized return.

FLMFX

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 1.19%
• YTD: 10.81%
• 6M: 9.73%
• 1Y: 25.81%
• 3Y*: 23.41%
• 5Y*: 13.49%
• 10Y*: 12.23%

QMLFX

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 6.68%
• YTD: 21.38%
• 6M: 18.19%
• 1Y: 38.95%
• 3Y*: 13.55%
• 5Y*: 2.02%
• 10Y*: 11.00%

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

FLMFX vs. QMLFX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLMFX Meeder Muirfield Fund	10.81%	15.28%	36.53%	13.79%	-11.16%	20.18%	4.36%	13.52%	-3.65%	20.30%
QMLFX Quantified Market Leaders Fund	21.38%	0.97%	11.05%	15.04%	-23.59%	13.22%	37.81%	26.08%	-13.48%	16.76%

Correlation

The correlation between FLMFX and QMLFX is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2013	0.87

The correlation between FLMFX and QMLFX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FLMFX vs. QMLFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLMFX

FLMFX Risk / Return Rank: 62
FLMFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
FLMFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
FLMFX Omega Ratio Rank: 57
FLMFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
FLMFX Martin Ratio Rank: 69

QMLFX

QMLFX Risk / Return Rank: 55
QMLFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
QMLFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
QMLFX Omega Ratio Rank: 42
QMLFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
QMLFX Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

FLMFX vs. QMLFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Meeder Muirfield Fund (FLMFX) and Quantified Market Leaders Fund (QMLFX). 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.

	FLMFX	QMLFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.14	1.81	+0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.92	2.34	+0.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.32	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	4.13	-1.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.52	11.64	+0.87

FLMFX vs. QMLFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLMFX Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is comparable to the QMLFX Sharpe Ratio of 1.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLMFX and QMLFX, 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

FLMFX vs. QMLFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLMFX drawdown since its inception was -42.42%, which is greater than QMLFX's maximum drawdown of -36.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLMFX and QMLFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLMFX	QMLFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.42%	-36.59%	-5.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.26%	-10.07%	+0.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.08%	-27.21%	+11.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.19%	-34.07%	+15.88%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.33%	-36.59%	+12.26%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.54%	0.00%	-0.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.25%	-12.49%	+3.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.14%	3.56%	-1.42%

Volatility

FLMFX vs. QMLFX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Meeder Muirfield Fund (FLMFX) is 4.65%, while Quantified Market Leaders Fund (QMLFX) has a volatility of 11.85%. This indicates that FLMFX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QMLFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLMFX	QMLFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.65%	11.85%	-7.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.95%	17.84%	-7.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.61%	23.04%	-10.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.64%	20.54%	-5.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.12%	21.24%	-7.12%

FLMFX vs. QMLFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLMFX has a 1.20% expense ratio, which is lower than QMLFX's 1.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLMFX vs. QMLFX - Dividend Comparison

FLMFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.92%, more than QMLFX's 1.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLMFX Meeder Muirfield Fund	4.92%	5.55%	31.99%	2.83%	2.76%	3.39%	0.58%	2.69%	1.50%	8.25%	0.72%	2.72%
QMLFX Quantified Market Leaders Fund	1.13%	1.37%	0.00%	1.99%	0.00%	26.84%	9.58%	0.00%	15.63%	12.15%	2.22%	1.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLMFX and QMLFX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, FLMFX and QMLFX 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, FLMFX or QMLFX?

QMLFX has higher volatility (11.85%) compared to FLMFX (4.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLMFX dropped -42.42% vs QMLFX's -36.59%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLMFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 1.81), 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.