QDVBX vs. MCDWX

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QDVBX (Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans) and MCDWX (Manning & Napier Credit Series) are both Intermediate Core Bond funds. Over the past 5 years, QDVBX returned -0.10%/yr vs 1.49%/yr for MCDWX. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QDVBX charges 0.04%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for MCDWX.

Performance

QDVBX vs. MCDWX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDVBX) and Manning & Napier Credit Series (MCDWX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QDVBX achieves a -0.23% return, which is significantly lower than MCDWX's 0.56% return.

QDVBX

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 0.46%
• YTD: -0.23%
• 6M: 0.00%
• 1Y: 3.50%
• 3Y*: 4.24%
• 5Y*: -0.10%
• 10Y*: —

MCDWX

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 0.50%
• YTD: 0.56%
• 6M: 0.78%
• 1Y: 4.54%
• 3Y*: 5.50%
• 5Y*: 1.49%
• 10Y*: —

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

QDVBX vs. MCDWX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
QDVBX Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans	-0.23%	7.64%	1.62%	6.37%	-14.31%	-0.37%	5.23%
MCDWX Manning & Napier Credit Series	0.56%	7.57%	4.13%	7.31%	-11.13%	0.01%	8.77%

Correlation

The correlation between QDVBX and MCDWX is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 14, 2020	0.92

The correlation between QDVBX and MCDWX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QDVBX vs. MCDWX — Risk / Return Rank

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

QDVBX

QDVBX Risk / Return Rank: 15
QDVBX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
QDVBX Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
QDVBX Omega Ratio Rank: 15
QDVBX Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
QDVBX Martin Ratio Rank: 14

MCDWX

MCDWX Risk / Return Rank: 39
MCDWX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
MCDWX Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
MCDWX Omega Ratio Rank: 44
MCDWX Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
MCDWX Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

QDVBX vs. MCDWX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDVBX) and Manning & Napier Credit Series (MCDWX). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	QDVBX	MCDWX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.03	1.69	-0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.58	2.46	-0.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.33	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.29	2.26	-0.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.67	7.01	-3.34

QDVBX vs. MCDWX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QDVBX Sharpe Ratio is 1.03, which is lower than the MCDWX Sharpe Ratio of 1.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QDVBX and MCDWX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

QDVBX vs. MCDWX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QDVBX drawdown since its inception was -19.86%, which is greater than MCDWX's maximum drawdown of -15.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDVBX and MCDWX.

Drawdown Indicators

	QDVBX	MCDWX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.86%	-15.96%	-3.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.00%	-2.17%	-0.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.37%	-4.22%	-1.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.86%	-15.96%	-3.90%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.31%	-0.95%	-1.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.64%	-4.12%	-2.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.05%	0.70%	+0.35%

Volatility

QDVBX vs. MCDWX - Volatility Comparison

Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDVBX) has a higher volatility of 1.03% compared to Manning & Napier Credit Series (MCDWX) at 0.89%. This indicates that QDVBX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MCDWX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QDVBX	MCDWX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.03%	0.89%	+0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.64%	2.25%	+0.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.75%	2.90%	+0.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.61%	4.63%	+1.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.21%	4.37%	+1.84%

QDVBX vs. MCDWX - Expense Ratio Comparison

QDVBX has a 0.04% expense ratio, which is lower than MCDWX's 0.10% 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

QDVBX vs. MCDWX - Dividend Comparison

QDVBX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.51%, less than MCDWX's 4.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
MCDWX Manning & Napier Credit Series	4.47%	4.83%	4.41%	4.48%	3.25%	4.45%	2.57%
QDVBX Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans	3.51%	3.51%	3.52%	3.66%	2.56%	1.70%	3.28%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QDVBX and MCDWX in my portfolio?

QDVBX and MCDWX have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QDVBX or MCDWX?

QDVBX has higher volatility (1.03%) compared to MCDWX (0.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QDVBX dropped -19.86% vs MCDWX's -15.96%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCDWX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.69 vs 1.03), 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.