QGRW vs. CAOS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

QGRW (WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QGRW is a Quality Factor fund tracking the WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Index, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. QGRW is passively managed, while CAOS is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QGRW returned 24.09%/yr vs 3.48%/yr for CAOS. Their 0.06 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. QGRW charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

QGRW vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund (QGRW) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QGRW achieves a 10.91% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.76% return.

QGRW

• 1D: 2.15%
• 1M: -0.09%
• 6M: 10.31%
• YTD: 10.91%
• 1Y: 22.76%
• 3Y*: 24.09%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 31.48%

CAOS

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -0.01%
• 6M: 0.16%
• YTD: 0.76%
• 1Y: 1.73%
• 3Y*: 3.48%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.70%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	$6.81M	$5.39M	$5.09M
QGRW WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund	$11.15M	$14.16M	$19.72M

QGRW vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QGRW WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund	10.91%	19.20%	34.85%	37.29%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.76%	2.55%	5.33%	7.43%

Correlation

The correlation between QGRW and CAOS is -0.33, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.33
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023	0.06

The correlation between QGRW and CAOS shifts across timeframes, from -0.33 (1 year) to 0.06 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QGRW vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QGRW

QGRW Risk / Return Rank: 40
QGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
QGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
QGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 39
QGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
QGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 41

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 56
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 54
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 48

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QGRW vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund (QGRW) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	QGRW	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.03	1.19	-0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.50	1.89	-0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.24	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	2.47	-1.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.44	5.45	-1.01

QGRW vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QGRW Sharpe Ratio is 1.03, which is comparable to the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QGRW and CAOS, 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

QGRW vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QGRW drawdown since its inception was -24.40%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QGRW and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	QGRW	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.40%	-3.89%	-20.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.44%	-0.76%	-14.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.40%	-3.60%	-20.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.19%	-1.13%	-4.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.34%	-0.92%	-2.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.51%	0.34%	+4.17%

Volatility

QGRW vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund (QGRW) has a higher volatility of 5.89% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.51%. This indicates that QGRW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QGRW	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.89%	0.51%	+5.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.87%	1.07%	+14.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.49%	1.57%	+17.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.24%	4.18%	+17.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.24%	4.18%	+17.06%

QGRW vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

QGRW has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is lower than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

QGRW vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

QGRW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.08%, while CAOS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QGRW WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund	0.08%	0.09%	0.14%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QGRW and CAOS in my portfolio?

QGRW and CAOS have a correlation of -0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QGRW or CAOS?

QGRW has higher volatility (5.89%) compared to CAOS (0.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QGRW dropped -24.40% vs CAOS's -3.89%.

Which ETF is better, QGRW or CAOS?

On 3-year performance, QGRW leads with 24.09% vs 3.48% for CAOS. On fees, QGRW is cheaper at 0.28% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QGRW or CAOS?

Over the 3-year period, QGRW has performed better with a 24.09% return vs 3.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QGRW or CAOS?

QGRW is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 0.63% for CAOS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QGRW or CAOS?

QGRW has the higher dividend yield at 0.08%, compared with 0.00% for CAOS.

What is the main difference between QGRW and CAOS?

QGRW is categorized as Quality Factor, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for QGRW and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CAOS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.19 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.