MUNA vs. QLC

Last updated Jun 7, 2026

MUNA (Northern Trust 2030 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF) and QLC (FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - MUNA is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Northern Trust, while QLC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Northern Trust Quality Large Cap Index. MUNA is actively managed, while QLC is passively managed. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MUNA charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for QLC.

Performance

MUNA vs. QLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Northern Trust 2030 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF (MUNA) and FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MUNA achieves a 1.59% return, which is significantly lower than QLC's 9.23% return.

MUNA

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.60%
• YTD: 1.59%
• 6M: 1.85%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QLC

• 1D: -2.57%
• 1M: 1.53%
• YTD: 9.23%
• 6M: 9.35%
• 1Y: 29.61%
• 3Y*: 24.47%
• 5Y*: 14.84%
• 10Y*: 14.50%

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

MUNA vs. QLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
MUNA Northern Trust 2030 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF	1.59%	0.63%
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	9.23%	10.50%

Correlation

The correlation between MUNA and QLC is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 20, 2025	0.25

Return for Risk

MUNA vs. QLC — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLC

QLC Risk / Return Rank: 78
QLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
QLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
QLC Omega Ratio Rank: 77
QLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
QLC Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

MUNA vs. QLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Northern Trust 2030 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF (MUNA) and FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC). 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MUNA	QLC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.46	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.88	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.79	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.63	0.79	+0.85

Drawdowns

MUNA vs. QLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MUNA drawdown since its inception was -0.91%, smaller than the maximum QLC drawdown of -35.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUNA and QLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	MUNA	QLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.91%	-35.86%	+34.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-8.84%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.49%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-23.81%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.06%	-2.66%	+2.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.28%	-4.54%	+4.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.89%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	MUNA	QLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.83%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	9.90%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.73%	12.67%	-10.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.73%	16.86%	-15.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.73%	18.43%	-16.70%

MUNA vs. QLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

MUNA has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than QLC's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

MUNA vs. QLC - Dividend Comparison

MUNA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.66%, more than QLC's 0.89% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
MUNA Northern Trust 2030 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF	1.66%	0.76%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	0.89%	0.94%	1.03%	1.26%	1.46%	0.96%	1.40%	1.91%	1.82%	1.29%	1.80%	0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MUNA and QLC in my portfolio?

MUNA and QLC have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MUNA or QLC?

On fees, MUNA is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MUNA or QLC?

MUNA is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for QLC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MUNA or QLC?

MUNA has the higher dividend yield at 1.66%, compared with 0.89% for QLC.

What is the main difference between MUNA and QLC?

MUNA is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while QLC is Large Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for MUNA and 0.25% for QLC.