QLTY vs. PSCX

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

QLTY (GMO U.S. Quality ETF) and PSCX (Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (December) ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. QLTY is passively managed, while PSCX is actively managed. Over the past year, QLTY returned 28.67% vs 16.09% for PSCX. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QLTY charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for PSCX.

Performance

QLTY vs. PSCX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) and Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (December) ETF (PSCX). 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 higher than PSCX's 5.24% return.

QLTY

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

PSCX

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 1.91%
• YTD: 5.24%
• 6M: 6.38%
• 1Y: 16.09%
• 3Y*: 12.89%
• 5Y*: 8.51%
• 10Y*: —

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

QLTY vs. PSCX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QLTY GMO U.S. Quality ETF	7.91%	21.26%	21.02%	5.68%
PSCX Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (December) ETF	5.24%	12.08%	13.27%	2.06%

Correlation

The correlation between QLTY and PSCX is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2023	0.82

The correlation between QLTY and PSCX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

QLTY vs. PSCX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLTY	PSCX
Technology	36.5%	33.2%
Healthcare	24.5%	9.6%
Communication Services	10.9%	10.3%
Consumer Defensive	9.1%	5.4%
Consumer Cyclical	8.1%	10.0%
Financial Services	7.4%	12.5%
Industrials	3.6%	8.4%
Basic Materials	-	1.9%
Energy	-	4.2%
Real Estate	-	2.0%
Utilities	-	2.6%

Return for Risk

QLTY vs. PSCX — 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

PSCX

PSCX Risk / Return Rank: 87
PSCX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
PSCX Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PSCX Omega Ratio Rank: 91
PSCX Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
PSCX Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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. PSCX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) and Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (December) ETF (PSCX). 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	PSCX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.35	2.92	-0.57
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.33	4.38	-1.05
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.60	-0.19
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.48	3.95	-1.47
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.13	20.26	-10.12
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. PSCX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLTY Sharpe Ratio is 2.35, which is comparable to the PSCX Sharpe Ratio of 2.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLTY and PSCX, 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	PSCX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.35	2.92	-0.57
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.21	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.55	1.28	+0.27

Drawdowns

QLTY vs. PSCX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLTY drawdown since its inception was -17.00%, which is greater than PSCX's maximum drawdown of -10.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTY and PSCX.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLTY	PSCX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.00%	-10.20%	-6.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.71%	-4.20%	-7.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-9.61%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-10.20%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.22%	0.00%	-0.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-1.87%	-0.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.86%	0.82%	+2.04%

Volatility

QLTY vs. PSCX - Volatility Comparison

GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) has a higher volatility of 2.65% compared to Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (December) ETF (PSCX) at 0.92%. This indicates that QLTY's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PSCX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLTY	PSCX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.65%	0.92%	+1.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.24%	4.21%	+5.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.25%	5.54%	+6.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.65%	7.07%	+7.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.65%	6.97%	+7.68%

QLTY vs. PSCX - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLTY has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than PSCX's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLTY vs. PSCX - Dividend Comparison

QLTY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.71%, while PSCX has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
PSCX Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (December) ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QLTY GMO U.S. Quality ETF	0.71%	0.73%	0.79%	0.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QLTY and PSCX in my portfolio?

QLTY and PSCX have a correlation of 0.83, 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 PSCX?

QLTY has higher volatility (2.65%) compared to PSCX (0.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTY dropped -17.00% vs PSCX's -10.20%.

Which ETF is better, QLTY or PSCX?

On 1-year performance, QLTY leads with 28.67% vs 16.09% for PSCX. On fees, QLTY is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, PSCX has been the lower-risk option at 0.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLTY or PSCX?

Over the 1-year period, QLTY has performed better with a 28.67% return vs 16.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLTY or PSCX?

QLTY is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for PSCX.

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

QLTY has the higher dividend yield at 0.71%, compared with 0.00% for PSCX.

What is the main difference between QLTY and PSCX?

They also come from different issuers: GMO and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for QLTY and 0.75% for PSCX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PSCX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.92 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.