PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QLTY vs. BLCR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QLTY vs. BLCR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) and Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLTY achieves a 7.91% return, which is significantly lower than BLCR's 19.96% return.


QLTY

1D
-0.17%
1M
3.91%
YTD
7.91%
6M
8.88%
1Y
28.67%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

BLCR

1D
0.14%
1M
6.36%
YTD
19.96%
6M
21.52%
1Y
48.53%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QLTY vs. BLCR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
QLTY
GMO U.S. Quality ETF
7.91%21.26%21.02%5.68%
BLCR
Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF
19.96%30.93%17.07%6.82%

Correlation

The correlation between QLTY and BLCR is 0.79, 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

0.79

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2023

0.85

The correlation between QLTY and BLCR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

QLTY vs. BLCR - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QLTY
BLCR

Technology

36.5%
35.7%

Healthcare

24.5%
7.6%

Communication Services

10.9%
11.0%

Consumer Defensive

9.1%

-

Consumer Cyclical

8.1%
10.9%

Financial Services

7.4%
12.1%

Industrials

3.6%
13.5%

Basic Materials

-

2.2%

Energy

-

2.2%

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

1.6%

Technology

QLTY
36.5%
BLCR
35.7%

Healthcare

QLTY
24.5%
BLCR
7.6%

Communication Services

QLTY
10.9%
BLCR
11.0%

Consumer Defensive

QLTY
9.1%
BLCR

-

Consumer Cyclical

QLTY
8.1%
BLCR
10.9%

Financial Services

QLTY
7.4%
BLCR
12.1%

Industrials

QLTY
3.6%
BLCR
13.5%

Basic Materials

QLTY

-

BLCR
2.2%

Energy

QLTY

-

BLCR
2.2%

Real Estate

QLTY

-

BLCR

-

Utilities

QLTY

-

BLCR
1.6%

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

QLTY vs. BLCR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLTY
QLTY Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
QLTY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QLTY Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
QLTY Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
QLTY Calmar Ratio Rank: 4949
Calmar Ratio Rank
QLTY Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank

BLCR
BLCR Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
BLCR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BLCR Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
BLCR Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
BLCR Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
BLCR Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

QLTY vs. BLCR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) and Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR). 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.


QLTYBLCRDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.35

3.14

-0.79

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.33

4.12

-0.79

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.54

-0.12

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.48

4.86

-2.39

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

10.13

23.10

-12.96

QLTY vs. BLCR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLTY Sharpe Ratio is 2.35, which is comparable to the BLCR Sharpe Ratio of 3.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLTY and BLCR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


QLTYBLCRDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.35

3.14

-0.79

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.55

1.91

-0.36

Drawdowns

QLTY vs. BLCR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLTY drawdown since its inception was -17.00%, smaller than the maximum BLCR drawdown of -21.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTY and BLCR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QLTYBLCRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-17.00%

-21.29%

+4.29%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.71%

-10.26%

-1.45%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.22%

-0.04%

-0.18%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.05%

-2.19%

+0.14%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.86%

2.16%

+0.70%

Volatility

QLTY vs. BLCR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) is 2.65%, while Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR) has a volatility of 4.43%. This indicates that QLTY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BLCR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QLTYBLCRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.65%

4.43%

-1.78%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.24%

12.25%

-3.01%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.25%

15.55%

-3.30%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.65%

17.48%

-2.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.65%

17.48%

-2.83%

QLTY vs. BLCR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLTY has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than BLCR's 0.36% expense ratio.


Dividends

QLTY vs. BLCR - Dividend Comparison

QLTY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.71%, more than BLCR's 0.23% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023
BLCR
Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF
0.23%0.33%0.75%0.13%
QLTY
GMO U.S. Quality ETF
0.71%0.73%0.79%0.15%

Frequently Asked Questions


QLTY and BLCR have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BLCR has higher volatility (4.43%) compared to QLTY (2.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTY dropped -17.00% vs BLCR's -21.29%.

On 1-year performance, BLCR leads with 48.53% vs 28.67% for QLTY. On fees, BLCR is cheaper at 0.36% per year. On volatility, QLTY has been the lower-risk option at 2.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, BLCR has performed better with a 48.53% return vs 28.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BLCR is cheaper with a 0.36% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for QLTY.

QLTY has the higher dividend yield at 0.71%, compared with 0.23% for BLCR.

They also come from different issuers: GMO and BlackRock. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for QLTY and 0.36% for BLCR.

BLCR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.14 vs 2.35), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QLTY and BLCR

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