QLTY vs. FAAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QLTY (GMO U.S. Quality ETF) and FAAR (First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QLTY is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P 500, while FAAR is a Commodities fund actively managed by First Trust. QLTY is passively managed, while FAAR is actively managed. Over the past year, QLTY returned 23.44% vs 28.33% for FAAR. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. QLTY charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FAAR.

Performance

QLTY vs. FAAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLTY achieves a 5.56% return, which is significantly lower than FAAR's 19.14% return.

QLTY

• 1D: -0.98%
• 1M: -1.19%
• YTD: 5.56%
• 6M: 4.84%
• 1Y: 23.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FAAR

• 1D: -0.91%
• 1M: -5.21%
• YTD: 19.14%
• 6M: 18.06%
• 1Y: 28.33%
• 3Y*: 10.57%
• 5Y*: 7.72%
• 10Y*: 4.69%

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

QLTY vs. FAAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QLTY GMO U.S. Quality ETF	5.56%	21.26%	21.02%	5.25%
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	19.14%	8.07%	5.97%	-1.49%

Correlation

The correlation between QLTY and FAAR is -0.11, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 15, 2023	-0.04

Return for Risk

QLTY vs. FAAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLTY

QLTY Risk / Return Rank: 53
QLTY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
QLTY Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
QLTY Omega Ratio Rank: 56
QLTY Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
QLTY Martin Ratio Rank: 51

FAAR

FAAR Risk / Return Rank: 75
FAAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
FAAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
FAAR Omega Ratio Rank: 65
FAAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FAAR Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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. FAAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). 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.

	QLTY	FAAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	2.15	-0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.65	3.09	-0.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.37	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.01	4.52	-2.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.15	15.18	-7.03

QLTY vs. FAAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLTY Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is comparable to the FAAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLTY and FAAR, 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

QLTY vs. FAAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLTY drawdown since its inception was -17.00%, smaller than the maximum FAAR drawdown of -18.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTY and FAAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLTY	FAAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.00%	-18.03%	+1.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.71%	-6.29%	-5.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.54%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.03%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-18.03%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.89%	-6.29%	+3.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.04%	-7.82%	+5.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.88%	1.87%	+1.01%

Volatility

QLTY vs. FAAR - Volatility Comparison

GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) has a higher volatility of 4.05% compared to First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) at 2.55%. This indicates that QLTY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FAAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLTY	FAAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.05%	2.55%	+1.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.74%	9.68%	+0.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.65%	13.38%	-0.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.68%	12.96%	+1.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.68%	11.54%	+3.14%

QLTY vs. FAAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLTY has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than FAAR's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLTY vs. FAAR - Dividend Comparison

QLTY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.72%, less than FAAR's 9.66% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	9.66%	11.63%	3.45%	3.20%	5.82%	6.49%	3.05%	1.02%	0.58%	2.83%
QLTY GMO U.S. Quality ETF	0.72%	0.73%	0.79%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QLTY and FAAR in my portfolio?

QLTY and FAAR have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QLTY or FAAR?

QLTY has higher volatility (4.05%) compared to FAAR (2.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTY dropped -17.00% vs FAAR's -18.03%.

Which ETF is better, QLTY or FAAR?

On 1-year performance, FAAR leads with 28.33% vs 23.44% for QLTY. On fees, QLTY is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, FAAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLTY or FAAR?

Over the 1-year period, FAAR has performed better with a 28.33% return vs 23.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLTY or FAAR?

QLTY is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FAAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QLTY or FAAR?

FAAR has the higher dividend yield at 9.66%, compared with 0.72% for QLTY.

What is the main difference between QLTY and FAAR?

QLTY is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while FAAR is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: GMO and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for QLTY and 0.95% for FAAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FAAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs 1.87), 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.