QLTY vs. GLNG

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

QLTY (GMO U.S. Quality ETF) is Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P 500, while GLNG (Golar LNG Limited) is a stock. Over the past year, QLTY returned 28.67% vs 27.06% for GLNG. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

QLTY vs. GLNG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) and Golar LNG Limited (GLNG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLTY achieves a 7.91% return, which is significantly lower than GLNG's 39.82% return.

QLTY

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

GLNG

• 1D: 1.78%
• 1M: -7.09%
• YTD: 39.82%
• 6M: 39.26%
• 1Y: 27.06%
• 3Y*: 38.12%
• 5Y*: 34.76%
• 10Y*: 14.07%

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

QLTY vs. GLNG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QLTY GMO U.S. Quality ETF	7.91%	21.26%	21.02%	5.68%
GLNG Golar LNG Limited	39.82%	-9.74%	90.78%	4.49%

Correlation

The correlation between QLTY and GLNG is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2023	0.20

The correlation between QLTY and GLNG shifts across timeframes, from -0.01 (1 year) to 0.20 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QLTY vs. GLNG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLTY

QLTY Risk / Return Rank: 64
QLTY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
QLTY Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
QLTY Omega Ratio Rank: 69
QLTY Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
QLTY Martin Ratio Rank: 57

GLNG

GLNG Risk / Return Rank: 65
GLNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
GLNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
GLNG Omega Ratio Rank: 61
GLNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
GLNG Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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. GLNG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) and Golar LNG Limited (GLNG). 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.

	QLTY	GLNG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.35	0.93	+1.42
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.33	1.49	+1.84
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.18	+0.24
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.48	1.31	+1.17
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.13	2.88	+7.25
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QLTY vs. GLNG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLTY Sharpe Ratio is 2.35, which is higher than the GLNG Sharpe Ratio of 0.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLTY and GLNG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QLTY	GLNG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.35	0.93	+1.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.89	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.26	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.55	0.20	+1.35

Drawdowns

QLTY vs. GLNG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLTY drawdown since its inception was -17.00%, smaller than the maximum GLNG drawdown of -92.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTY and GLNG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLTY	GLNG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.00%	-92.81%	+75.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.71%	-21.95%	+10.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-29.41%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.35%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-86.29%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.22%	-11.02%	+10.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-43.80%	+41.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.86%	9.96%	-7.10%

Volatility

QLTY vs. GLNG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) is 2.65%, while Golar LNG Limited (GLNG) has a volatility of 9.70%. This indicates that QLTY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLNG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLTY	GLNG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.65%	9.70%	-7.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.24%	21.54%	-12.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.25%	29.13%	-16.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.65%	39.31%	-24.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.65%	53.57%	-38.92%

Dividends

QLTY vs. GLNG - Dividend Comparison

QLTY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.71%, less than GLNG's 2.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GLNG Golar LNG Limited	2.43%	2.69%	2.36%	3.26%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.11%	1.72%	0.67%	0.87%	11.40%
QLTY GMO U.S. Quality ETF	0.71%	0.73%	0.79%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QLTY and GLNG in my portfolio?

QLTY and GLNG have a correlation of -0.01, 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 GLNG?

GLNG has higher volatility (9.70%) compared to QLTY (2.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTY dropped -17.00% vs GLNG's -92.81%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QLTY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.35 vs 0.93), 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.