PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MFSG vs. GQGU
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

MFSG vs. GQGU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) and GQG US Equity ETF (GQGU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MFSG achieves a 4.90% return, which is significantly lower than GQGU's 5.74% return.


MFSG

1D
-1.61%
1M
-2.40%
6M
4.43%
YTD
4.90%
1Y
10.80%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

GQGU

1D
0.04%
1M
0.43%
6M
4.51%
YTD
5.74%
1Y
4.73%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MFSG vs. GQGU - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025
MFSG
MFS Active Growth ETF
4.90%6.69%
GQGU
GQG US Equity ETF
5.74%-1.12%

Correlation

The correlation between MFSG and GQGU is -0.32, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.32

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2025

-0.32

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

MFSG vs. GQGU — Risk / Return Rank

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

MFSG
MFSG Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
MFSG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MFSG Sortino Ratio Rank: 2121
Sortino Ratio Rank
MFSG Omega Ratio Rank: 2020
Omega Ratio Rank
MFSG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
MFSG Martin Ratio Rank: 2323
Martin Ratio Rank

GQGU
GQGU Risk / Return Rank: 1717
Overall Rank
GQGU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1818
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GQGU Sortino Ratio Rank: 1616
Sortino Ratio Rank
GQGU Omega Ratio Rank: 1515
Omega Ratio Rank
GQGU Calmar Ratio Rank: 1818
Calmar Ratio Rank
GQGU Martin Ratio Rank: 1717
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

MFSG vs. GQGU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) and GQG US Equity ETF (GQGU). 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.


MFSGGQGUDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.18

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.25

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.12

1.08

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.67

0.56

+0.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.27

1.36

+0.91

MFSG vs. GQGU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFSG Sharpe Ratio is 0.62, which is higher than the GQGU Sharpe Ratio of 0.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFSG and GQGU, 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

MFSG vs. GQGU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFSG drawdown since its inception was -23.24%, which is greater than GQGU's maximum drawdown of -8.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFSG and GQGU.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MFSGGQGUDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.24%

-8.41%

-14.83%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.15%

-8.41%

-7.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.45%

-5.42%

+1.97%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.54%

-2.91%

-1.63%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.76%

3.48%

+1.28%

Volatility

MFSG vs. GQGU - Volatility Comparison

MFS Active Growth ETF (MFSG) has a higher volatility of 5.93% compared to GQG US Equity ETF (GQGU) at 4.36%. This indicates that MFSG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GQGU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MFSGGQGUDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.93%

4.36%

+1.57%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.36%

8.52%

+5.84%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.51%

10.71%

+6.80%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.85%

10.68%

+11.17%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.85%

10.68%

+11.17%

MFSG vs. GQGU - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both MFSG and GQGU have an expense ratio of 0.49%.


Dividends

MFSG vs. GQGU - Dividend Comparison

MFSG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than GQGU's 0.96% yield.


PositionTTM2025
GQGU
GQG US Equity ETF
0.96%1.02%
MFSG
MFS Active Growth ETF
0.07%0.08%

Frequently Asked Questions


MFSG and GQGU have a correlation of -0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MFSG has higher volatility (5.93%) compared to GQGU (4.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFSG dropped -23.24% vs GQGU's -8.41%.

On 1-year performance, MFSG leads with 10.80% vs 4.73% for GQGU. Both ETFs have the same 0.49% expense ratio. On volatility, GQGU has been the lower-risk option at 4.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, MFSG has performed better with a 10.80% return vs 4.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

MFSG and GQGU have the same expense ratio: 0.49% per year.

GQGU has the higher dividend yield at 0.96%, compared with 0.07% for MFSG.

They also come from different issuers: MFS and GQG Partners.

MFSG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.62 vs 0.44), 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 MFSG and GQGU

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