PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
LFEQ vs. QWLD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

LFEQ vs. QWLD

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

LFEQ (VanEck Long/Flat Trend ETF) and QWLD (SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - LFEQ tracks the Ned Davis Research CMG US Large Cap Long/Flat Index - USD while QWLD tracks the MSCI World Factor Mix A-Series (USD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LFEQ returned 8.90%/yr vs 10.03%/yr for QWLD. Their correlation of 0.82 means they have usually moved in the same direction. LFEQ charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for QWLD.

Performance

LFEQ vs. QWLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Long/Flat Trend ETF (LFEQ) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with LFEQ having a 9.84% return and QWLD slightly lower at 9.39%.

LFEQ

1D
0.87%
1M
0.35%
6M
8.40%
YTD
9.84%
1Y
20.95%
3Y*
15.35%
5Y*
8.90%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
11.53%

QWLD

1D
0.22%
1M
1.63%
6M
6.46%
YTD
9.39%
1Y
19.11%
3Y*
15.49%
5Y*
10.03%
10Y*
11.57%
ALL TIME*
10.49%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

LFEQ

VanEck Long/Flat Trend ETF
$53.35K$94.32K$91.22K

QWLD

SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF
$231.12K$297.84K$1.04M

LFEQ vs. QWLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
LFEQ
VanEck Long/Flat Trend ETF		9.84%10.49%24.30%19.66%-22.05%27.97%17.56%24.07%-5.55%5.48%
QWLD
SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF		9.39%17.93%14.44%19.59%-13.30%21.57%10.24%27.59%-7.02%5.59%

Correlation

The correlation between LFEQ and QWLD is 0.83, 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.

0.83

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.85

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.83

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 5, 2017

0.82

The correlation between LFEQ and QWLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

LFEQ vs. QWLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
LFEQ
QWLD

Technology

39.1%
24.9%

Financial Services

10.9%
16.5%

Communication Services

10.7%
9.5%

Consumer Cyclical

9.9%
6.3%

Healthcare

8.3%
13.2%

Industrials

7.8%
10.9%

Consumer Defensive

4.5%
8.1%

Energy

3.1%
3.4%

Utilities

2.1%
3.8%

Real Estate

1.8%
1.0%

Basic Materials

1.7%
2.5%

Technology

LFEQ
39.1%
QWLD
24.9%

Financial Services

LFEQ
10.9%
QWLD
16.5%

Communication Services

LFEQ
10.7%
QWLD
9.5%

Consumer Cyclical

LFEQ
9.9%
QWLD
6.3%

Healthcare

LFEQ
8.3%
QWLD
13.2%

Industrials

LFEQ
7.8%
QWLD
10.9%

Consumer Defensive

LFEQ
4.5%
QWLD
8.1%

Energy

LFEQ
3.1%
QWLD
3.4%

Utilities

LFEQ
2.1%
QWLD
3.8%

Real Estate

LFEQ
1.8%
QWLD
1.0%

Basic Materials

LFEQ
1.7%
QWLD
2.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

VanEck Long/Flat Trend ETF

SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF

Often compared with LFEQ:
LFEQ vs. VOOLFEQ vs. MSTYLFEQ vs. FVLFEQ vs. SPYLFEQ vs. PTLCLFEQ vs. BDGSLFEQ vs. FTLS
Often compared with QWLD:
QWLD vs. URTHQWLD vs. DGTQWLD vs. SPGMQWLD vs. VTQWLD vs. VWICXQWLD vs. JPGL.LQWLD vs. QVML

Return for Risk

LFEQ vs. QWLD — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
LFEQ
LFEQ Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
LFEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LFEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
LFEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
LFEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
LFEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank
QWLD
QWLD Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
QWLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QWLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
QWLD Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
QWLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
QWLD Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

LFEQ vs. QWLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Long/Flat Trend ETF (LFEQ) 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.

LFEQQWLDDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.50
1.93

-0.44

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.09
2.75

-0.65

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.34

-0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.14

2.44

-0.30

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.09

10.67

-1.58

LFEQ vs. QWLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFEQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.50, which is comparable to the QWLD Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFEQ 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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

LFEQ vs. QWLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFEQ drawdown since its inception was -35.19%, which is greater than QWLD's maximum drawdown of -31.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFEQ and QWLD.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

LFEQQWLDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.19%

-31.89%

-3.30%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.98%

-7.66%

-1.32%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.97%

-12.40%

-6.57%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.55%

-22.84%

-2.71%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-31.89%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.31%

0.00%

-1.31%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.08%

-3.66%

-2.42%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.11%

1.75%

+0.36%

Volatility

LFEQ vs. QWLD - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Long/Flat Trend ETF (LFEQ) has a higher volatility of 3.57% compared to SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD) at 2.30%. This indicates that LFEQ'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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

LFEQQWLDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.57%

2.30%

+1.27%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.08%

7.73%

+2.35%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.85%

9.71%

+3.14%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.47%

13.51%

+0.96%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.53%

15.12%

+2.41%

LFEQ vs. QWLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

LFEQ has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than QWLD's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

LFEQ vs. QWLD - Dividend Comparison

LFEQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.82%, less than QWLD's 1.79% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
LFEQ
VanEck Long/Flat Trend ETF		0.82%0.90%0.74%1.56%1.19%0.37%2.06%1.45%1.07%0.79%0.00%0.00%
QWLD
SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF		1.79%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

LFEQ and QWLD have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

LFEQ has higher volatility (3.57%) compared to QWLD (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFEQ dropped -35.19% vs QWLD's -31.89%.

On 5-year performance, QWLD leads with 10.03% vs 8.90% for LFEQ. On fees, QWLD is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, QWLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, QWLD has performed better with a 10.03% return vs 8.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QWLD is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for LFEQ.

QWLD has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 0.82% for LFEQ.

LFEQ tracks Ned Davis Research CMG US Large Cap Long/Flat Index - USD, while QWLD tracks MSCI World Factor Mix A-Series (USD). They also come from different issuers: VanEck and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for LFEQ and 0.30% for QWLD.

QWLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs 1.50), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LFEQ and QWLD

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