MUND vs. QLC
MUND (Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF) and QLC (FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - MUND 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. MUND is actively managed, while QLC is passively managed. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MUND charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for QLC.
Performance
MUND vs. QLC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MUND achieves a 1.28% return, which is significantly lower than QLC's 9.23% return.
MUND
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- -0.18%
- YTD
- 1.28%
- 6M
- 1.54%
- 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%
MUND vs. QLC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MUND Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF | 1.28% | 4.34% |
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund | 9.23% | 10.50% |
Correlation
The correlation between MUND and QLC is 0.22, 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 | 0.22 |
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
MUND vs. QLC — Risk / Return Rank
MUND
QLC
MUND vs. QLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF (MUND) 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.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MUND | 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 | 0.99 | 0.79 | +0.21 |
Drawdowns
MUND vs. QLC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MUND drawdown since its inception was -4.19%, smaller than the maximum QLC drawdown of -35.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MUND and QLC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MUND | QLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.19% | -35.86% | +31.67% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.96% | -2.66% | +0.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.88% | -4.54% | +2.66% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.89% | — |
Volatility
MUND vs. QLC - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MUND | 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 | 7.29% | 12.67% | -5.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.29% | 16.86% | -9.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.29% | 18.43% | -11.14% |
MUND vs. QLC - Expense Ratio Comparison
MUND 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
MUND vs. QLC - Dividend Comparison
MUND's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.81%, more than QLC's 0.89% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MUND Northern Trust 2055 Tax-Exempt Distributing Ladder ETF | 2.81% | 1.32% | 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
MUND and QLC have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, MUND is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MUND is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for QLC.
MUND has the higher dividend yield at 2.81%, compared with 0.89% for QLC.
MUND is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while QLC is Large Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for MUND and 0.25% for QLC.
Find the right allocation for MUND and QLC
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