QLC vs. AUSF

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

QLC (FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund) and AUSF (Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QLC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Northern Trust Quality Large Cap Index, while AUSF is a Mid Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Adaptive Wealth Strategies U.S. Factor Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QLC returned 14.84%/yr vs 12.90%/yr for AUSF. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QLC charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for AUSF.

Performance

QLC vs. AUSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) and Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF (AUSF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLC achieves a 9.23% return, which is significantly higher than AUSF's 7.61% return.

QLC

• 1D: -2.57%
• 1M: 1.04%
• YTD: 9.23%
• 6M: 9.35%
• 1Y: 30.96%
• 3Y*: 24.47%
• 5Y*: 14.84%
• 10Y*: 14.50%

AUSF

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 1.15%
• YTD: 7.61%
• 6M: 8.32%
• 1Y: 17.01%
• 3Y*: 20.14%
• 5Y*: 12.90%
• 10Y*: —

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

QLC vs. AUSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	9.23%	23.26%	26.71%	26.02%	-17.21%	28.46%	13.64%	24.51%	-15.22%
AUSF Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF	7.61%	13.69%	16.05%	22.26%	-0.18%	27.48%	1.27%	24.06%	-10.79%

Correlation

The correlation between QLC and AUSF is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 29, 2018	0.75

Over the past year, the correlation between QLC and AUSF has dropped to 0.52 - well below their long-term average of 0.75, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

QLC vs. AUSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLC	AUSF
Technology	34.8%	13.5%
Financial Services	13.8%	18.7%
Communication Services	13.8%	10.6%
Healthcare	10.1%	12.0%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	7.8%
Industrials	6.6%	11.7%
Utilities	3.4%	4.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	8.5%
Real Estate	2.3%	4.1%
Basic Materials	2.2%	4.0%
Energy	2.0%	5.2%

Return for Risk

QLC vs. AUSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLC

QLC Risk / Return Rank: 78
QLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
QLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
QLC Omega Ratio Rank: 77
QLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
QLC Martin Ratio Rank: 84

AUSF

AUSF Risk / Return Rank: 53
AUSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
AUSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
AUSF Omega Ratio Rank: 48
AUSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
AUSF Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

QLC vs. AUSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) and Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF (AUSF). 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.

	QLC	AUSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	1.69	+0.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.34	2.44	+0.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.29	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.52	2.92	+0.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.39	8.48	+7.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QLC vs. AUSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLC Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is higher than the AUSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLC and AUSF, 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

	QLC	AUSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.46	1.69	+0.77
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.88	0.95	-0.06
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.79	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.79	0.65	+0.13

Drawdowns

QLC vs. AUSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLC drawdown since its inception was -35.86%, smaller than the maximum AUSF drawdown of -44.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLC and AUSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLC	AUSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.86%	-44.25%	+8.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.84%	-5.84%	-3.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.49%	-12.29%	-6.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.81%	-14.23%	-9.58%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.66%	-1.44%	-1.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.54%	-4.22%	-0.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.89%	2.01%	-0.12%

Volatility

QLC vs. AUSF - Volatility Comparison

FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) has a higher volatility of 3.83% compared to Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF (AUSF) at 2.49%. This indicates that QLC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AUSF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLC	AUSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.83%	2.49%	+1.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.90%	6.67%	+3.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.67%	10.12%	+2.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.86%	13.65%	+3.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.43%	19.07%	-0.64%

QLC vs. AUSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLC has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than AUSF's 0.27% 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

QLC vs. AUSF - Dividend Comparison

QLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than AUSF's 2.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AUSF Global X Adaptive U.S. Factor ETF	2.73%	2.78%	2.63%	1.83%	2.51%	2.22%	2.95%	4.02%	1.46%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	0.89%	0.94%	1.03%	1.26%	1.46%	0.96%	1.40%	1.91%	1.82%	1.29%	1.80%	0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QLC and AUSF in my portfolio?

QLC and AUSF have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QLC or AUSF?

QLC has higher volatility (3.83%) compared to AUSF (2.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLC dropped -35.86% vs AUSF's -44.25%.

Which ETF is better, QLC or AUSF?

On 5-year performance, QLC leads with 14.84% vs 12.90% for AUSF. On fees, QLC is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, AUSF has been the lower-risk option at 2.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLC or AUSF?

Over the 5-year period, QLC has performed better with a 14.84% return vs 12.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLC or AUSF?

QLC is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.27% for AUSF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QLC or AUSF?

AUSF has the higher dividend yield at 2.73%, compared with 0.89% for QLC.

What is the main difference between QLC and AUSF?

QLC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while AUSF is Mid Cap Value Equities. QLC tracks Northern Trust Quality Large Cap Index, while AUSF tracks Adaptive Wealth Strategies U.S. Factor Index. They also come from different issuers: Northern Trust and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for QLC and 0.27% for AUSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.46 vs 1.69), 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.