LCLG vs. QLC
LCLG (Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF) and QLC (FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - LCLG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Logan, while QLC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Northern Trust Quality Large Cap Index. LCLG is actively managed, while QLC is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LCLG returned 30.13%/yr vs 25.39%/yr for QLC. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LCLG charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for QLC.
Performance
LCLG vs. QLC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LCLG achieves a 19.42% return, which is significantly higher than QLC's 11.39% return.
LCLG
- 1D
- 0.47%
- 1M
- 11.82%
- YTD
- 19.42%
- 6M
- 17.86%
- 1Y
- 39.05%
- 3Y*
- 30.13%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QLC
- 1D
- -0.74%
- 1M
- 5.38%
- YTD
- 11.39%
- 6M
- 11.88%
- 1Y
- 33.09%
- 3Y*
- 25.39%
- 5Y*
- 15.29%
- 10Y*
- 14.83%
LCLG vs. QLC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LCLG Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF | 19.42% | 18.15% | 32.04% | 35.45% | -8.58% |
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund | 11.39% | 23.26% | 26.71% | 26.02% | -6.34% |
Correlation
The correlation between LCLG and QLC is 0.89, 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 | 0.89 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2022 | 0.93 |
The correlation between LCLG and QLC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.
LCLG vs. QLC - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
LCLG
QLC
Technology
Communication Services
Industrials
Consumer Cyclical
Financial Services
Healthcare
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Energy
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Technology
LCLG
QLC
Communication Services
LCLG
QLC
Industrials
LCLG
QLC
Consumer Cyclical
LCLG
QLC
Financial Services
LCLG
QLC
Healthcare
LCLG
QLC
Basic Materials
LCLG
QLC
Consumer Defensive
LCLG
QLC
Energy
LCLG
-
QLC
Real Estate
LCLG
-
QLC
Utilities
LCLG
-
QLC
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LCLG vs. QLC — Risk / Return Rank
LCLG
QLC
LCLG vs. QLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) and FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC). 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.
| LCLG | QLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.58 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.89 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.48 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.85 | 3.76 | -0.91 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.52 | 17.59 | -6.08 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LCLG | QLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.11 | 2.69 | -0.58 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.91 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.81 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.14 | 0.80 | +0.34 |
Drawdowns
LCLG vs. QLC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LCLG drawdown since its inception was -25.79%, smaller than the maximum QLC drawdown of -35.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCLG and QLC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LCLG | QLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -25.79% | -35.86% | +10.07% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.75% | -8.84% | -4.91% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.79% | -18.49% | -7.30% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -23.81% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.86% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.74% | +0.74% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.48% | -4.54% | +0.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.40% | 1.89% | +1.51% |
Volatility
LCLG vs. QLC - Volatility Comparison
Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) has a higher volatility of 5.85% compared to FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) at 2.94%. This indicates that LCLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QLC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LCLG | QLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.85% | 2.94% | +2.91% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.77% | 9.51% | +5.26% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.60% | 12.38% | +6.22% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.60% | 16.82% | +4.78% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.60% | 18.42% | +3.18% |
LCLG vs. QLC - Expense Ratio Comparison
LCLG has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than QLC's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
LCLG vs. QLC - Dividend Comparison
LCLG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LCLG Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.06% | 0.97% | 2.03% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund | 0.88% | 0.94% | 1.03% | 1.26% | 1.46% | 0.96% | 1.40% | 1.91% | 1.82% | 1.29% | 1.80% | 0.64% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LCLG and QLC have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LCLG has higher volatility (5.85%) compared to QLC (2.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCLG dropped -25.79% vs QLC's -35.86%.
On 3-year performance, LCLG leads with 30.13% vs 25.39% for QLC. On fees, QLC is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, QLC has been the lower-risk option at 2.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, LCLG has performed better with a 30.13% return vs 25.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
QLC is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for LCLG.
QLC has the higher dividend yield at 0.88%, compared with 0.00% for LCLG.
LCLG is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while QLC is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Logan and Northern Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for LCLG and 0.25% for QLC.
QLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.69 vs 2.11), 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.
Find the right allocation for LCLG and QLC
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer