LQAI vs. EINC

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

LQAI (LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF) and EINC (VanEck Energy Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LQAI is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by QRAFT, while EINC is a Energy Equities fund tracking the MVIS North America Energy Infrastructure Index. LQAI is actively managed, while EINC is passively managed. Over the past year, LQAI returned 35.08% vs 27.43% for EINC. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LQAI charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for EINC.

Performance

LQAI vs. EINC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF (LQAI) and VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LQAI achieves a 19.04% return, which is significantly lower than EINC's 24.85% return.

LQAI

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: 1.56%
• YTD: 19.04%
• 6M: 17.20%
• 1Y: 35.08%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EINC

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: -5.35%
• YTD: 24.85%
• 6M: 24.98%
• 1Y: 27.43%
• 3Y*: 29.97%
• 5Y*: 20.83%
• 10Y*: 11.93%

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

LQAI vs. EINC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LQAI LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF	19.04%	13.70%	27.82%	9.29%
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF	24.85%	7.11%	42.79%	2.88%

Correlation

The correlation between LQAI and EINC is -0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 7, 2023	0.23

The correlation between LQAI and EINC shifts across timeframes, from -0.07 (1 year) to 0.23 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LQAI vs. EINC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LQAI	EINC
Technology	47.3%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.8%	-
Communication Services	10.3%	-
Financial Services	8.7%	-
Industrials	5.3%	2.5%
Healthcare	4.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	-
Energy	3.2%	99.4%
Real Estate	2.3%	-
Utilities	2.2%	0.6%
Basic Materials	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

LQAI vs. EINC — Risk / Return Rank

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

LQAI

LQAI Risk / Return Rank: 70
LQAI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
LQAI Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
LQAI Omega Ratio Rank: 72
LQAI Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
LQAI Martin Ratio Rank: 62

EINC

EINC Risk / Return Rank: 62
EINC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
EINC Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
EINC Omega Ratio Rank: 58
EINC Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
EINC Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

LQAI vs. EINC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF (LQAI) and VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC). 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.

	LQAI	EINC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.07	1.83	+0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.67	2.48	+0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.32	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.53	3.49	+0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.92	8.81	+1.11

LQAI vs. EINC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LQAI Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is comparable to the EINC Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LQAI and EINC, 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

LQAI vs. EINC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LQAI drawdown since its inception was -21.24%, smaller than the maximum EINC drawdown of -87.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LQAI and EINC.

Drawdown Indicators

	LQAI	EINC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.24%	-87.55%	+66.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.00%	-7.89%	-2.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.87%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-68.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.48%	-5.35%	+1.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.04%	-44.14%	+41.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.55%	3.12%	+0.43%

Volatility

LQAI vs. EINC - Volatility Comparison

LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF (LQAI) has a higher volatility of 8.59% compared to VanEck Energy Income ETF (EINC) at 6.28%. This indicates that LQAI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EINC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LQAI	EINC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.59%	6.28%	+2.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.44%	11.93%	+1.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.09%	15.11%	+1.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.50%	19.55%	-2.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.50%	25.43%	-7.93%

LQAI vs. EINC - Expense Ratio Comparison

LQAI has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than EINC's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

LQAI vs. EINC - Dividend Comparison

LQAI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, less than EINC's 3.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EINC VanEck Energy Income ETF	3.55%	4.51%	3.33%	3.77%	2.89%	6.03%	6.69%	9.66%	11.31%	8.53%	9.71%	28.53%
LQAI LG QRAFT AI-Powered U.S. Large Cap Core ETF	0.91%	1.14%	0.69%	0.16%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LQAI and EINC in my portfolio?

LQAI and EINC have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LQAI or EINC?

LQAI has higher volatility (8.59%) compared to EINC (6.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LQAI dropped -21.24% vs EINC's -87.55%.

Which ETF is better, LQAI or EINC?

On 1-year performance, LQAI leads with 35.08% vs 27.43% for EINC. On fees, EINC is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, EINC has been the lower-risk option at 6.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LQAI or EINC?

Over the 1-year period, LQAI has performed better with a 35.08% return vs 27.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LQAI or EINC?

EINC is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LQAI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LQAI or EINC?

EINC has the higher dividend yield at 3.55%, compared with 0.91% for LQAI.

What is the main difference between LQAI and EINC?

LQAI is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while EINC is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: QRAFT and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LQAI and 0.45% for EINC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LQAI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 1.83), 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.