QDF vs. SMH
QDF (FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund) and SMH (VanEck Semiconductor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QDF is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Northern Trust Quality Dividend Index, while SMH is a Semiconductors fund tracking the MVIS US Listed Semiconductor 25 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, QDF returned 12.18%/yr vs 37.68%/yr for SMH. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QDF charges 0.37%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for SMH.
Performance
QDF vs. SMH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QDF achieves a 10.70% return, which is significantly lower than SMH's 77.13% return. Over the past 10 years, QDF has underperformed SMH with an annualized return of 12.18%, while SMH has yielded a comparatively higher 37.68% annualized 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%
SMH
- 1D
- 0.90%
- 1M
- 25.87%
- YTD
- 77.13%
- 6M
- 75.61%
- 1Y
- 157.20%
- 3Y*
- 64.17%
- 5Y*
- 39.21%
- 10Y*
- 37.68%
QDF vs. SMH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QDF FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund | 10.70% | 16.58% | 16.95% | 19.71% | -12.13% | 26.65% | 4.86% | 25.71% | -7.97% | 17.42% |
SMH VanEck Semiconductor ETF | 77.13% | 49.17% | 39.10% | 73.38% | -33.53% | 42.13% | 55.53% | 64.45% | -9.05% | 38.48% |
Correlation
The correlation between QDF and SMH is 0.70, 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 | 0.70 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.70 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.73 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.71 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2012 | 0.71 |
The correlation between QDF and SMH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.
QDF vs. SMH - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
QDF
SMH
Technology
Financial Services
-
Industrials
-
Healthcare
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
-
Energy
-
Technology
QDF
SMH
Financial Services
QDF
SMH
-
Industrials
QDF
SMH
-
Healthcare
QDF
SMH
-
Consumer Cyclical
QDF
SMH
-
Communication Services
QDF
SMH
-
Consumer Defensive
QDF
SMH
-
Real Estate
QDF
SMH
-
Utilities
QDF
SMH
-
Basic Materials
QDF
SMH
-
Energy
QDF
SMH
-
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
QDF vs. SMH — Risk / Return Rank
QDF
SMH
QDF vs. SMH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) and VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH). 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 | SMH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.79 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.86 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.44 | 1.72 | -0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.52 | 10.59 | -7.08 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.37 | 40.63 | -25.25 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QDF | SMH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.40 | 5.19 | -2.79 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.77 | 1.13 | -0.36 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.70 | 1.16 | -0.46 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.78 | 0.34 | +0.44 |
Drawdowns
QDF vs. SMH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QDF drawdown since its inception was -36.67%, smaller than the maximum SMH drawdown of -84.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDF and SMH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QDF | SMH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.67% | -84.96% | +48.29% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.90% | -14.93% | +7.03% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.01% | -35.74% | +17.73% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.06% | -45.30% | +23.24% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -36.67% | -45.30% | +8.63% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.56% | 0.00% | -0.56% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.65% | -41.09% | +37.44% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.80% | 3.89% | -2.09% |
Volatility
QDF vs. SMH - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) is 2.95%, while VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) has a volatility of 11.47%. This indicates that QDF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SMH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QDF | SMH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.95% | 11.47% | -8.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.76% | 24.29% | -15.53% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.60% | 30.56% | -18.96% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.60% | 35.01% | -19.41% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.39% | 32.57% | -15.18% |
QDF vs. SMH - Expense Ratio Comparison
QDF has a 0.37% expense ratio, which is higher than SMH's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
QDF vs. SMH - Dividend Comparison
QDF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.50%, more than SMH's 0.17% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
SMH VanEck Semiconductor ETF | 0.17% | 0.31% | 0.44% | 0.60% | 1.18% | 0.51% | 0.69% | 1.50% | 1.88% | 1.43% | 0.80% | 2.14% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QDF and SMH have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SMH has higher volatility (11.47%) compared to QDF (2.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QDF dropped -36.67% vs SMH's -84.96%.
On 10-year performance, SMH leads with 37.68% vs 12.18% for QDF. On fees, SMH is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, QDF has been the lower-risk option at 2.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, SMH has performed better with a 37.68% return vs 12.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SMH is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.37% for QDF.
QDF has the higher dividend yield at 1.50%, compared with 0.17% for SMH.
QDF is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while SMH is Semiconductors. QDF tracks Northern Trust Quality Dividend Index, while SMH tracks MVIS US Listed Semiconductor 25 Index. They also come from different issuers: FlexShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.37% for QDF and 0.35% for SMH.
SMH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.19 vs 2.40), 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.
Find the right allocation for QDF and SMH
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