LGRO vs. QWLD

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

LGRO (Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF) and QWLD (SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. LGRO is actively managed, while QWLD is passively managed. Over the past year, LGRO returned 25.05% vs 19.80% for QWLD. Their 0.76 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. LGRO charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for QWLD.

Performance

LGRO vs. QWLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF (LGRO) 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, LGRO achieves a 11.71% return, which is significantly higher than QWLD's 10.03% return.

LGRO

• 1D: 1.59%
• 1M: 4.26%
• 6M: 11.46%
• YTD: 11.71%
• 1Y: 25.05%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 22.86%

QWLD

• 1D: 0.58%
• 1M: 2.22%
• 6M: 5.89%
• YTD: 10.03%
• 1Y: 19.80%
• 3Y*: 16.43%
• 5Y*: 10.04%
• 10Y*: 11.64%
• ALL TIME*: 10.53%

*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)
LGRO Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF	$456.45K	$371.04K	$369.04K
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	$247.86K	$289.30K	$1.06M

LGRO vs. QWLD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LGRO Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF	11.71%	18.15%	23.95%	12.10%
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	10.03%	17.93%	14.44%	7.96%

Correlation

The correlation between LGRO and QWLD is 0.72, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 23, 2023	0.76

The correlation between LGRO and QWLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

LGRO vs. QWLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGRO	QWLD
Technology	52.8%	24.9%
Consumer Cyclical	13.8%	6.3%
Communication Services	10.3%	9.5%
Financial Services	8.7%	16.5%
Healthcare	8.3%	13.2%
Industrials	2.8%	10.9%
Energy	1.9%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.5%	8.1%
Basic Materials	-	2.5%
Real Estate	-	1.0%
Utilities	-	3.8%

Return for Risk

LGRO vs. QWLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGRO

LGRO Risk / Return Rank: 52
LGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
LGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
LGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 56
LGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
LGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 43

QWLD

QWLD Risk / Return Rank: 81
QWLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
QWLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
QWLD Omega Ratio Rank: 83
QWLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
QWLD Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

LGRO vs. QWLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF (LGRO) 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.

	LGRO	QWLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	2.06	-0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.10	2.91	-0.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.37	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.65	2.60	-0.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.13	11.35	-6.22

LGRO vs. QWLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGRO Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is comparable to the QWLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGRO 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

LGRO vs. QWLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGRO drawdown since its inception was -23.26%, smaller than the maximum QWLD drawdown of -31.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGRO and QWLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGRO	QWLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.26%	-31.89%	+8.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.24%	-7.66%	-7.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.40%	—
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	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.38%	-3.66%	+0.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.89%	1.75%	+3.14%

Volatility

LGRO vs. QWLD - Volatility Comparison

Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF (LGRO) has a higher volatility of 4.17% compared to SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD) at 2.28%. This indicates that LGRO'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

	LGRO	QWLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.17%	2.28%	+1.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.39%	7.74%	+4.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.43%	9.70%	+6.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.18%	13.51%	+5.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.18%	15.12%	+4.06%

LGRO vs. QWLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGRO has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than QWLD's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGRO vs. QWLD - Dividend Comparison

LGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%, less than QWLD's 1.78% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LGRO Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF	0.34%	0.31%	0.39%	0.26%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF	1.78%	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 LGRO and QWLD in my portfolio?

LGRO and QWLD have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LGRO or QWLD?

LGRO has higher volatility (4.17%) compared to QWLD (2.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGRO dropped -23.26% vs QWLD's -31.89%.

Which ETF is better, LGRO or QWLD?

On 1-year performance, LGRO leads with 25.05% vs 19.80% for QWLD. On fees, QWLD is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, QWLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGRO or QWLD?

Over the 1-year period, LGRO has performed better with a 25.05% return vs 19.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGRO or QWLD?

QWLD is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for LGRO.

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

QWLD has the higher dividend yield at 1.78%, compared with 0.34% for LGRO.

What is the main difference between LGRO and QWLD?

They also come from different issuers: ALPS and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for LGRO and 0.30% for QWLD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QWLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 vs 1.53), 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.