LSGR vs. QWLD
LSGR (Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF) and QWLD (SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. LSGR is actively managed, while QWLD is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LSGR returned 18.37%/yr vs 15.39%/yr for QWLD. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LSGR charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for QWLD.
Performance
LSGR vs. QWLD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LSGR achieves a -3.14% return, which is significantly lower than QWLD's 7.95% return.
LSGR
- 1D
- 0.54%
- 1M
- 1.25%
- 6M
- -3.44%
- YTD
- -3.14%
- 1Y
- 3.20%
- 3Y*
- 18.37%
- 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%
LSGR vs. QWLD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
LSGR Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF | -3.14% | 15.32% | 38.52% | 12.46% |
QWLD SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF | 7.95% | 17.93% | 14.44% | 8.28% |
Correlation
The correlation between LSGR and QWLD is 0.60, 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 | 0.60 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.68 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2023 | 0.69 |
The correlation between LSGR and QWLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.
LSGR vs. QWLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
LSGR
QWLD
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Consumer Defensive
Financial Services
Industrials
Basic Materials
-
Energy
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Technology
LSGR
QWLD
Communication Services
LSGR
QWLD
Consumer Cyclical
LSGR
QWLD
Healthcare
LSGR
QWLD
Consumer Defensive
LSGR
QWLD
Financial Services
LSGR
QWLD
Industrials
LSGR
QWLD
Basic Materials
LSGR
-
QWLD
Energy
LSGR
-
QWLD
Real Estate
LSGR
-
QWLD
Utilities
LSGR
-
QWLD
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
LSGR vs. QWLD — Risk / Return Rank
LSGR
QWLD
LSGR vs. QWLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF (LSGR) 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.
| LSGR | QWLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.46 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.99 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.05 | 1.29 | -0.25 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.18 | 2.08 | -1.91 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.52 | 8.97 | -8.45 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LSGR vs. QWLD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LSGR drawdown since its inception was -22.92%, smaller than the maximum QWLD drawdown of -31.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LSGR and QWLD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LSGR | QWLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.92% | -31.89% | +8.97% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -18.13% | -7.66% | -10.47% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.92% | -12.40% | -10.52% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -22.84% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -31.89% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.20% | -0.28% | -5.92% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.01% | -3.68% | -0.33% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.18% | 1.78% | +4.40% |
Volatility
LSGR vs. QWLD - Volatility Comparison
Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF (LSGR) has a higher volatility of 5.78% compared to SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD) at 2.09%. This indicates that LSGR'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
| LSGR | QWLD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.78% | 2.09% | +3.69% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.61% | 7.80% | +5.81% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.23% | 9.70% | +7.53% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.40% | 13.52% | +6.88% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.40% | 15.11% | +5.29% |
LSGR vs. QWLD - Expense Ratio Comparison
LSGR has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than QWLD's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
LSGR vs. QWLD - Dividend Comparison
LSGR 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LSGR Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.05% | 0.08% | 0.03% | 0.00% | 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
LSGR and QWLD have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LSGR has higher volatility (5.78%) compared to QWLD (2.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LSGR dropped -22.92% vs QWLD's -31.89%.
On 3-year performance, LSGR leads with 18.37% 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.
Over the 3-year period, LSGR has performed better with a 18.37% return vs 15.39%. 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 0.59% for LSGR.
QWLD has the higher dividend yield at 1.81%, compared with 0.00% for LSGR.
They also come from different issuers: Natixis and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for LSGR and 0.30% for QWLD.
QWLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 vs 0.19), 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 LSGR 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