FLQL vs. DARP

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FLQL (Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF) and DARP (Grizzle Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FLQL is passively managed, while DARP is actively managed. Over the past year, FLQL returned 24.07% vs 53.03% for DARP. Their correlation of 0.82 means they have usually moved in the same direction. FLQL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for DARP.

Performance

FLQL vs. DARP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF (FLQL) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLQL achieves a 13.02% return, which is significantly lower than DARP's 24.09% return.

FLQL

• 1D: 1.19%
• 1M: 1.31%
• 6M: 9.21%
• YTD: 13.02%
• 1Y: 24.07%
• 3Y*: 21.95%
• 5Y*: 13.76%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 14.75%

DARP

• 1D: 2.48%
• 1M: -1.50%
• 6M: 11.54%
• YTD: 24.09%
• 1Y: 53.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 32.92%

*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)
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	$367.14K	$288.77K	$436.18K
FLQL Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF	$7.69M	$6.06M	$6.47M

FLQL vs. DARP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FLQL Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF	13.02%	19.64%	24.33%	8.73%
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	24.09%	40.19%	24.63%	6.25%

Correlation

The correlation between FLQL and DARP is 0.81, 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.	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2023	0.82

The correlation between FLQL and DARP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLQL vs. DARP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLQL	DARP
Technology	39.4%	48.3%
Communication Services	10.5%	13.5%
Healthcare	10.2%	1.4%
Financial Services	9.6%	-
Industrials	9.0%	8.2%
Consumer Cyclical	8.9%	8.3%
Consumer Defensive	3.4%	-
Real Estate	2.7%	-
Energy	2.6%	9.2%
Utilities	2.0%	5.2%
Basic Materials	1.7%	4.2%

Return for Risk

FLQL vs. DARP — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLQL

FLQL Risk / Return Rank: 74
FLQL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
FLQL Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
FLQL Omega Ratio Rank: 71
FLQL Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
FLQL Martin Ratio Rank: 83

DARP

DARP Risk / Return Rank: 80
DARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
DARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
DARP Omega Ratio Rank: 72
DARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
DARP Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

FLQL vs. DARP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF (FLQL) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). 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.

	FLQL	DARP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.72	1.99	-0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.45	2.47	-0.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.31	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.67	3.38	-0.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.86	12.79	-0.93

FLQL vs. DARP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLQL Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is comparable to the DARP Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLQL and DARP, 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

FLQL vs. DARP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLQL drawdown since its inception was -33.64%, which is greater than DARP's maximum drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLQL and DARP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLQL	DARP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.64%	-30.27%	-3.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.05%	-15.76%	+6.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.32%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.41%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.53%	-7.17%	+6.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.00%	-4.72%	+0.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.03%	4.16%	-2.13%

Volatility

FLQL vs. DARP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF (FLQL) is 4.49%, while Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP) has a volatility of 9.89%. This indicates that FLQL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DARP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLQL	DARP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.49%	9.89%	-5.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.45%	21.41%	-9.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.09%	26.90%	-12.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.31%	26.84%	-10.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.49%	26.84%	-9.35%

FLQL vs. DARP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLQL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than DARP's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLQL vs. DARP - Dividend Comparison

FLQL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.02%, more than DARP's 0.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	0.35%	0.43%	1.93%	0.32%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLQL Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF	1.02%	1.10%	1.13%	1.50%	2.07%	1.81%	1.99%	1.78%	1.82%	1.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLQL and DARP in my portfolio?

FLQL and DARP have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLQL or DARP?

DARP has higher volatility (9.89%) compared to FLQL (4.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLQL dropped -33.64% vs DARP's -30.27%.

Which ETF is better, FLQL or DARP?

On 1-year performance, DARP leads with 53.03% vs 24.07% for FLQL. On fees, FLQL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FLQL has been the lower-risk option at 4.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLQL or DARP?

Over the 1-year period, DARP has performed better with a 53.03% return vs 24.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLQL or DARP?

FLQL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for DARP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLQL or DARP?

FLQL has the higher dividend yield at 1.02%, compared with 0.35% for DARP.

What is the main difference between FLQL and DARP?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Grizzle. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FLQL and 0.75% for DARP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DARP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 1.72), 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.