PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QCLR vs. GRW
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QCLR vs. GRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF (QCLR) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period


QCLR

1D
0.00%
1M
1.52%
YTD
1.40%
6M
-0.07%
1Y
11.39%
3Y*
13.84%
5Y*
10Y*

GRW

1D
-0.32%
1M
YTD
6M
1Y
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QCLR vs. GRW - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between QCLR and GRW is 1.00 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


Correlation
Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026

1.00

QCLR vs. GRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QCLR
GRW

Technology

53.8%
26.6%

Communication Services

15.8%
9.1%

Consumer Cyclical

12.2%
8.3%

Consumer Defensive

7.7%

-

Healthcare

4.2%
4.1%

Industrials

2.9%
38.1%

Utilities

1.4%

-

Basic Materials

1.1%
4.0%

Energy

0.6%

-

Financial Services

0.2%
9.8%

Real Estate

0.1%

-

Technology

QCLR
53.8%
GRW
26.6%

Communication Services

QCLR
15.8%
GRW
9.1%

Consumer Cyclical

QCLR
12.2%
GRW
8.3%

Consumer Defensive

QCLR
7.7%
GRW

-

Healthcare

QCLR
4.2%
GRW
4.1%

Industrials

QCLR
2.9%
GRW
38.1%

Utilities

QCLR
1.4%
GRW

-

Basic Materials

QCLR
1.1%
GRW
4.0%

Energy

QCLR
0.6%
GRW

-

Financial Services

QCLR
0.2%
GRW
9.8%

Real Estate

QCLR
0.1%
GRW

-

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

QCLR vs. GRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

QCLR
QCLR Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
QCLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3232
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QCLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
QCLR Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
QCLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
QCLR Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
Martin Ratio Rank

GRW
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.

QCLR vs. GRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF (QCLR) and TCW Durable Growth ETF (GRW). 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.


QCLRGRWDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.12

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.02

QCLR vs. GRW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


QCLRGRWDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.17

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.67

14.00

-13.33

Drawdowns

QCLR vs. GRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QCLR drawdown since its inception was -21.77%, which is greater than GRW's maximum drawdown of -0.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QCLR and GRW.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QCLRGRWDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.77%

-0.45%

-21.32%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.22%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.58%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.89%

-0.45%

-0.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.20%

-0.14%

-6.06%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.84%

Volatility

QCLR vs. GRW - Volatility Comparison


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QCLRGRWDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.45%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.24%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.82%

10.19%

-0.37%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.42%

10.19%

+2.23%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

12.42%

10.19%

+2.23%

QCLR vs. GRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

QCLR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than GRW's 0.75% expense ratio.


Dividends

QCLR vs. GRW - Dividend Comparison

QCLR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.68%, while GRW has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021
GRW
TCW Durable Growth ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
QCLR
Global X NASDAQ 100 Collar 95-110 ETF
14.68%14.89%8.89%0.47%0.27%1.64%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 1.00, QCLR and GRW move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

On fees, QCLR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

QCLR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRW.

QCLR has the higher dividend yield at 14.68%, compared with 0.00% for GRW.

QCLR is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while GRW is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Global X and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QCLR and 0.75% for GRW.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QCLR and GRW

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