QLC vs. IFRA

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

QLC (FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund) and IFRA (iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QLC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Northern Trust Quality Large Cap Index, while IFRA is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the NYSE FactSet U.S. Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QLC returned 15.50%/yr vs 13.63%/yr for IFRA. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. QLC charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for IFRA.

Performance

QLC vs. IFRA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLC achieves a 11.97% return, which is significantly lower than IFRA's 19.01% return.

QLC

• 1D: 1.63%
• 1M: 3.02%
• YTD: 11.97%
• 6M: 12.35%
• 1Y: 33.81%
• 3Y*: 24.25%
• 5Y*: 15.50%
• 10Y*: 15.08%

IFRA

• 1D: 0.44%
• 1M: 2.86%
• YTD: 19.01%
• 6M: 17.73%
• 1Y: 31.64%
• 3Y*: 19.65%
• 5Y*: 13.63%
• 10Y*: —

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

QLC vs. IFRA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	11.97%	23.26%	26.71%	26.02%	-17.21%	28.46%	13.64%	24.51%	-8.19%
IFRA iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF	19.01%	15.90%	17.02%	13.42%	-3.32%	29.81%	7.37%	27.00%	-7.97%

Correlation

The correlation between QLC and IFRA is 0.59, 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	0.59
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 Apr 5, 2018	0.71

The correlation between QLC and IFRA shifts across timeframes, from 0.59 (1 year) to 0.72 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QLC vs. IFRA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLC	IFRA
Technology	37.8%	-
Financial Services	13.2%	-
Communication Services	13.0%	-
Healthcare	9.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.8%	0.0%
Industrials	6.3%	39.4%
Utilities	3.1%	37.7%
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	0.0%
Real Estate	2.1%	-
Basic Materials	2.0%	14.7%
Energy	2.0%	7.9%

Return for Risk

QLC vs. IFRA — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLC

QLC Risk / Return Rank: 86
QLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
QLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
QLC Omega Ratio Rank: 86
QLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
QLC Martin Ratio Rank: 88

IFRA

IFRA Risk / Return Rank: 75
IFRA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
IFRA Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
IFRA Omega Ratio Rank: 65
IFRA Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
IFRA Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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. IFRA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) and iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF (IFRA). 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	IFRA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.64	2.11	+0.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	3.07	+0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.35	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.84	3.78	+0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.56	13.85	+3.70

QLC vs. IFRA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLC Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is comparable to the IFRA Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLC and IFRA, 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. IFRA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLC drawdown since its inception was -35.86%, smaller than the maximum IFRA drawdown of -41.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLC and IFRA.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLC	IFRA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.86%	-41.06%	+5.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.84%	-8.40%	-0.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.49%	-19.93%	+1.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.81%	-19.93%	-3.88%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.22%	-0.87%	+0.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.53%	-5.13%	+0.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.93%	2.29%	-0.36%

Volatility

QLC vs. IFRA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund (QLC) is 4.70%, while iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF (IFRA) has a volatility of 5.33%. This indicates that QLC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IFRA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLC	IFRA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.70%	5.33%	-0.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.29%	11.64%	-1.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.90%	15.11%	-2.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.92%	17.98%	-1.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.46%	21.37%	-2.91%

QLC vs. IFRA - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLC has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than IFRA's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLC vs. IFRA - Dividend Comparison

QLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, less than IFRA's 1.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IFRA iShares U.S. Infrastructure ETF	1.86%	1.84%	1.75%	1.98%	1.98%	1.63%	2.08%	1.68%	2.50%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QLC FlexShares US Quality Large Cap Index Fund	0.87%	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 IFRA in my portfolio?

QLC and IFRA have a correlation of 0.59, 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 IFRA?

IFRA has higher volatility (5.33%) compared to QLC (4.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLC dropped -35.86% vs IFRA's -41.06%.

Which ETF is better, QLC or IFRA?

On 5-year performance, QLC leads with 15.50% vs 13.63% for IFRA. On fees, QLC is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, QLC has been the lower-risk option at 4.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLC or IFRA?

Over the 5-year period, QLC has performed better with a 15.50% return vs 13.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLC or IFRA?

QLC is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for IFRA.

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

IFRA has the higher dividend yield at 1.86%, compared with 0.87% for QLC.

What is the main difference between QLC and IFRA?

QLC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while IFRA is Industrials Equities. QLC tracks Northern Trust Quality Large Cap Index, while IFRA tracks NYSE FactSet U.S. Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: Northern Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for QLC and 0.30% for IFRA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 2.11), 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.