QDF vs. BGIG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QDF (FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund) and BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. QDF is passively managed, while BGIG is actively managed. Over the past year, QDF returned 27.64% vs 19.51% for BGIG. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QDF charges 0.37%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for BGIG.

Performance

QDF vs. BGIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QDF achieves a 10.70% return, which is significantly higher than BGIG's 9.84% return.

QDF

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: 4.60%
• YTD: 10.70%
• 6M: 10.82%
• 1Y: 27.64%
• 3Y*: 19.21%
• 5Y*: 11.90%
• 10Y*: 12.18%

BGIG

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 1.82%
• YTD: 9.84%
• 6M: 9.56%
• 1Y: 19.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QDF vs. BGIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QDF FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund	10.70%	16.58%	16.95%	8.08%
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	9.84%	12.49%	16.84%	4.55%

Correlation

The correlation between QDF and BGIG is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2023	0.81

The correlation between QDF and BGIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

QDF vs. BGIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QDF	BGIG
Technology	38.3%	24.6%
Financial Services	13.2%	14.8%
Industrials	8.9%	10.6%
Healthcare	8.3%	14.6%
Consumer Cyclical	6.9%	5.4%
Communication Services	6.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.5%	6.9%
Real Estate	5.4%	3.5%
Utilities	2.1%	7.9%
Basic Materials	1.6%	0.6%
Energy	0.9%	11.2%

Return for Risk

QDF vs. BGIG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QDF

QDF Risk / Return Rank: 73
QDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
QDF Omega Ratio Rank: 73
QDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
QDF Martin Ratio Rank: 78

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 68
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

QDF vs. BGIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). 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.

	QDF	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.40	2.18	+0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.36	3.13	+0.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.39	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.52	3.37	+0.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.37	12.97	+2.40
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QDF vs. BGIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QDF Sharpe Ratio is 2.40, which is comparable to the BGIG Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QDF and BGIG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QDF	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.40	2.18	+0.22
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.70	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.78	1.38	-0.60

Drawdowns

QDF vs. BGIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QDF drawdown since its inception was -36.67%, which is greater than BGIG's maximum drawdown of -13.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDF and BGIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QDF	BGIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.67%	-13.24%	-23.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.90%	-5.81%	-2.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.01%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.06%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.67%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.56%	-0.28%	-0.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.65%	-1.70%	-1.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.80%	1.51%	+0.29%

Volatility

QDF vs. BGIG - Volatility Comparison

FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) has a higher volatility of 2.95% compared to Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) at 2.57%. This indicates that QDF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QDF	BGIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.95%	2.57%	+0.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.76%	6.72%	+2.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.60%	9.00%	+2.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.60%	11.94%	+3.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.39%	11.94%	+5.45%

QDF vs. BGIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QDF has a 0.37% expense ratio, which is lower than BGIG's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

QDF vs. BGIG - Dividend Comparison

QDF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.50%, less than BGIG's 1.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.75%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QDF FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund	1.50%	1.65%	1.93%	2.19%	2.45%	1.90%	2.38%	3.05%	4.29%	2.70%	3.07%	3.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QDF and BGIG in my portfolio?

QDF and BGIG have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QDF or BGIG?

QDF has higher volatility (2.95%) compared to BGIG (2.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QDF dropped -36.67% vs BGIG's -13.24%.

Which ETF is better, QDF or BGIG?

On 1-year performance, QDF leads with 27.64% vs 19.51% for BGIG. On fees, QDF is cheaper at 0.37% per year. On volatility, BGIG has been the lower-risk option at 2.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QDF or BGIG?

Over the 1-year period, QDF has performed better with a 27.64% return vs 19.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QDF or BGIG?

QDF is cheaper with a 0.37% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for BGIG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QDF or BGIG?

BGIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 1.50% for QDF.

What is the main difference between QDF and BGIG?

They also come from different issuers: FlexShares and Bahl & Gaynor. Their fees differ too: 0.37% for QDF and 0.45% for BGIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 2.18), 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.