QLTI vs. SCHF
QLTI (GMO International Quality ETF) and SCHF (Schwab International Equity ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. QLTI is actively managed, while SCHF is passively managed. Over the past year, QLTI returned 3.61% vs 32.67% for SCHF. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QLTI charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.06%/yr for SCHF.
Performance
QLTI vs. SCHF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, QLTI achieves a -1.50% return, which is significantly lower than SCHF's 15.56% return.
QLTI
- 1D
- -0.57%
- 1M
- 2.60%
- YTD
- -1.50%
- 6M
- 0.16%
- 1Y
- 3.61%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SCHF
- 1D
- -0.86%
- 1M
- 5.91%
- YTD
- 15.56%
- 6M
- 18.62%
- 1Y
- 32.67%
- 3Y*
- 19.90%
- 5Y*
- 9.84%
- 10Y*
- 10.27%
QLTI vs. SCHF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
QLTI GMO International Quality ETF | -1.50% | 17.12% | -8.17% |
SCHF Schwab International Equity ETF | 15.56% | 34.55% | -4.41% |
Correlation
The correlation between QLTI and SCHF is 0.84, 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 | 0.84 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 30, 2024 | 0.84 |
The correlation between QLTI and SCHF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
QLTI vs. SCHF — Risk / Return Rank
QLTI
SCHF
QLTI vs. SCHF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GMO International Quality ETF (QLTI) and Schwab International Equity ETF (SCHF). 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.
| QLTI | SCHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.24 | 2.09 | -1.85 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.45 | 2.87 | -2.42 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.05 | 1.37 | -0.32 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.26 | 2.86 | -2.59 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.76 | 11.11 | -10.35 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| QLTI | SCHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.24 | 2.09 | -1.85 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.60 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.60 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.22 | 0.44 | -0.21 |
Drawdowns
QLTI vs. SCHF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum QLTI drawdown since its inception was -14.82%, smaller than the maximum SCHF drawdown of -34.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTI and SCHF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| QLTI | SCHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.82% | -34.87% | +20.05% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.72% | -11.48% | -2.24% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -13.41% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -29.14% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -34.87% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.89% | -0.86% | -6.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.77% | -7.38% | +3.61% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.77% | 2.95% | +1.82% |
Volatility
QLTI vs. SCHF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for GMO International Quality ETF (QLTI) is 4.91%, while Schwab International Equity ETF (SCHF) has a volatility of 5.66%. This indicates that QLTI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SCHF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| QLTI | SCHF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.91% | 5.66% | -0.75% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.38% | 13.34% | -0.96% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.30% | 15.74% | -0.44% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.69% | 16.39% | +0.30% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.69% | 17.18% | -0.49% |
QLTI vs. SCHF - Expense Ratio Comparison
QLTI has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than SCHF's 0.06% expense ratio.
Dividends
QLTI vs. SCHF - Dividend Comparison
QLTI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than SCHF's 2.96% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QLTI GMO International Quality ETF | 0.53% | 0.52% | 0.19% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SCHF Schwab International Equity ETF | 2.96% | 3.42% | 3.26% | 2.97% | 2.80% | 3.19% | 2.08% | 2.95% | 3.06% | 2.35% | 2.58% | 2.26% |
Frequently Asked Questions
QLTI and SCHF have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SCHF has higher volatility (5.66%) compared to QLTI (4.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTI dropped -14.82% vs SCHF's -34.87%.
On 1-year performance, SCHF leads with 32.67% vs 3.61% for QLTI. On fees, SCHF is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, QLTI has been the lower-risk option at 4.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, SCHF has performed better with a 32.67% return vs 3.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SCHF is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for QLTI.
SCHF has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 0.53% for QLTI.
They also come from different issuers: GMO and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QLTI and 0.06% for SCHF.
SCHF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 0.24), 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.
Find the right allocation for QLTI and SCHF
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer