LCLG vs. QWLD

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

LCLG (Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF) and QWLD (SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. LCLG is actively managed, while QWLD is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LCLG returned 25.79%/yr vs 15.39%/yr for QWLD. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LCLG charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for QWLD.

Performance

LCLG vs. QWLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCLG achieves a 16.44% return, which is significantly higher than QWLD's 7.95% return.

LCLG

• 1D: 0.88%
• 1M: -0.41%
• 6M: 11.16%
• YTD: 16.44%
• 1Y: 29.19%
• 3Y*: 25.79%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QWLD

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 1.12%
• 6M: 6.11%
• YTD: 7.95%
• 1Y: 15.88%
• 3Y*: 15.39%
• 5Y*: 9.96%
• 10Y*: 11.53%

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

LCLG vs. QWLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
LCLG Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF	16.44%	18.15%	32.04%	35.45%	-8.62%
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	7.95%	17.93%	14.44%	19.59%	-2.20%

Correlation

The correlation between LCLG and QWLD is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 8, 2022	0.82

The correlation between LCLG and QWLD shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.82 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LCLG vs. QWLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LCLG	QWLD
Technology	38.0%	25.3%
Communication Services	18.8%	8.4%
Industrials	17.5%	8.5%
Consumer Cyclical	15.3%	5.2%
Financial Services	5.8%	14.6%
Healthcare	2.7%	12.9%
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	7.2%
Basic Materials	0.9%	2.3%
Energy	-	2.6%
Real Estate	-	0.7%
Utilities	-	3.8%

Return for Risk

LCLG vs. QWLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCLG

LCLG Risk / Return Rank: 53
LCLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
LCLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
LCLG Omega Ratio Rank: 49
LCLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
LCLG Martin Ratio Rank: 59

QWLD

QWLD Risk / Return Rank: 60
QWLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
QWLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
QWLD Omega Ratio Rank: 60
QWLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
QWLD Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

LCLG vs. QWLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). 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.

	LCLG	QWLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	1.64	-0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.02	2.36	-0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.29	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.13	2.08	+0.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.33	8.97	-0.63

LCLG vs. QWLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is comparable to the QWLD Sharpe Ratio of 1.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCLG and QWLD, 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

LCLG vs. QWLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCLG drawdown since its inception was -25.79%, smaller than the maximum QWLD drawdown of -31.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCLG and QWLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCLG	QWLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.79%	-31.89%	+6.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.75%	-7.66%	-6.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.79%	-12.40%	-13.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.84%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-31.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.76%	-0.28%	-3.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.42%	-3.68%	-0.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.51%	1.78%	+1.73%

Volatility

LCLG vs. QWLD - Volatility Comparison

Logan Capital Broad Innovative Growth ETF (LCLG) has a higher volatility of 7.11% compared to SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD) at 2.09%. This indicates that LCLG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QWLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCLG	QWLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.11%	2.09%	+5.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.48%	7.80%	+8.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.05%	9.70%	+10.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.76%	13.52%	+8.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.76%	15.11%	+6.65%

LCLG vs. QWLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCLG has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than QWLD's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCLG vs. QWLD - Dividend Comparison

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

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%
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	1.81%	1.85%	1.74%	1.78%	2.02%	1.77%	1.77%	2.13%	2.33%	2.73%	2.22%	3.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCLG and QWLD in my portfolio?

LCLG and QWLD have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LCLG or QWLD?

LCLG has higher volatility (7.11%) compared to QWLD (2.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCLG dropped -25.79% vs QWLD's -31.89%.

Which ETF is better, LCLG or QWLD?

On 3-year performance, LCLG leads with 25.79% vs 15.39% for QWLD. On fees, QWLD is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, QWLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCLG or QWLD?

Over the 3-year period, LCLG has performed better with a 25.79% return vs 15.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCLG or QWLD?

QWLD is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for LCLG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LCLG or QWLD?

QWLD has the higher dividend yield at 1.81%, compared with 0.00% for LCLG.

What is the main difference between LCLG and QWLD?

They also come from different issuers: Logan and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for LCLG and 0.30% for QWLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QWLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 vs 1.46), 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.