QLC vs. AVUQ

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

QLC (FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund) and AVUQ (Avantis U.S. Quality ETF) are both Quality Factor funds. QLC is passively managed, while AVUQ is actively managed. Over the past year, QLC returned 29.86% vs 21.57% for AVUQ. Their correlation of 0.94 means they have usually moved in the same direction. QLC charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for AVUQ.

Performance

QLC vs. AVUQ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLC achieves a 15.68% return, which is significantly higher than AVUQ's 12.97% return.

QLC

• 1D: 1.86%
• 1M: 3.97%
• 6M: 14.01%
• YTD: 15.68%
• 1Y: 29.86%
• 3Y*: 24.86%
• 5Y*: 15.04%
• 10Y*: 14.87%
• ALL TIME*: 14.63%

AVUQ

• 1D: 1.92%
• 1M: 3.69%
• 6M: 12.29%
• YTD: 12.97%
• 1Y: 21.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 26.59%

*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)
AVUQ Avantis U.S. Quality ETF	$1.22M	$1.05M	$1.47M
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	$3.27M	$4.10M	$3.64M

QLC vs. AVUQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	15.68%	25.73%
AVUQ Avantis U.S. Quality ETF	12.97%	21.84%

Correlation

The correlation between QLC and AVUQ is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2025	0.94

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

QLC vs. AVUQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLC	AVUQ
Technology	38.0%	47.2%
Financial Services	13.6%	5.5%
Communication Services	10.2%	12.2%
Healthcare	10.0%	5.7%
Consumer Cyclical	7.2%	13.3%
Industrials	5.8%	8.9%
Utilities	3.8%	0.7%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	3.2%
Real Estate	2.8%	0.1%
Energy	2.3%	2.1%
Basic Materials	2.1%	1.1%

Return for Risk

QLC vs. AVUQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLC

QLC Risk / Return Rank: 86
QLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
QLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
QLC Omega Ratio Rank: 85
QLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
QLC Martin Ratio Rank: 89

AVUQ

AVUQ Risk / Return Rank: 46
AVUQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
AVUQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
AVUQ Omega Ratio Rank: 43
AVUQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
AVUQ Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

QLC vs. AVUQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) and Avantis U.S. Quality ETF (AVUQ). 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.

	QLC	AVUQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.27	1.30	+0.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	1.85	+1.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.23	+0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.39	1.87	+1.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.13	6.73	+8.41

QLC vs. AVUQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLC Sharpe Ratio is 2.27, which is higher than the AVUQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLC and AVUQ, 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

QLC vs. AVUQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLC drawdown since its inception was -35.86%, which is greater than AVUQ's maximum drawdown of -12.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLC and AVUQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLC	AVUQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.86%	-12.35%	-23.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.84%	-11.61%	+2.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.49%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.81%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.49%	-2.23%	-2.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.98%	3.21%	-1.23%

Volatility

QLC vs. AVUQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) is 3.89%, while Avantis U.S. Quality ETF (AVUQ) has a volatility of 5.46%. This indicates that QLC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AVUQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLC	AVUQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.89%	5.46%	-1.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.51%	13.26%	-2.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.30%	16.77%	-3.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.94%	19.47%	-2.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.41%	19.47%	-1.06%

QLC vs. AVUQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLC has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than AVUQ's 0.15% expense ratio. However, 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. AVUQ - Dividend Comparison

QLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, more than AVUQ's 0.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AVUQ Avantis U.S. Quality ETF	0.30%	0.32%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	0.90%	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 AVUQ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, QLC and AVUQ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, QLC or AVUQ?

AVUQ has higher volatility (5.46%) compared to QLC (3.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLC dropped -35.86% vs AVUQ's -12.35%.

Which ETF is better, QLC or AVUQ?

On 1-year performance, QLC leads with 29.86% vs 21.57% for AVUQ. On fees, AVUQ is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, QLC has been the lower-risk option at 3.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLC or AVUQ?

Over the 1-year period, QLC has performed better with a 29.86% return vs 21.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLC or AVUQ?

AVUQ is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for QLC.

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

QLC has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.30% for AVUQ.

What is the main difference between QLC and AVUQ?

They also come from different issuers: Northern Trust and Avantis. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for QLC and 0.15% for AVUQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 1.30), 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.