QLV vs. ROE

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

QLV (FlexShares US Quality Low Volatility Index Fund) and ROE (Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF) are both Quality Factor funds. QLV is passively managed, while ROE is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, QLV returned 15.60%/yr vs 21.23%/yr for ROE. Their 0.74 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. QLV charges 0.22%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for ROE.

Performance

QLV vs. ROE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FlexShares US Quality Low Volatility Index Fund (QLV) and Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLV achieves a 9.55% return, which is significantly lower than ROE's 21.52% return.

QLV

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: 1.91%
• 6M: 6.89%
• YTD: 9.55%
• 1Y: 16.70%
• 3Y*: 15.60%
• 5Y*: 10.05%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.67%

ROE

• 1D: 0.98%
• 1M: 1.61%
• 6M: 15.98%
• YTD: 21.52%
• 1Y: 34.66%
• 3Y*: 21.23%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 20.65%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
QLV FlexShares US Quality Low Volatility Index Fund	$571.44K	$481.55K	$516.78K
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	$1.14M	$1.17M	$931.17K

QLV vs. ROE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QLV FlexShares US Quality Low Volatility Index Fund	9.55%	12.28%	18.08%	4.45%
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	21.52%	17.20%	18.34%	4.31%

Correlation

The correlation between QLV and ROE is 0.51, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2023	0.74

Over the past year, the correlation between QLV and ROE has dropped to 0.51 - well below their long-term average of 0.74, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

QLV vs. ROE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QLV	ROE
Technology	30.2%	33.9%
Healthcare	14.1%	10.2%
Financial Services	12.3%	11.9%
Consumer Defensive	7.8%	4.9%
Communication Services	7.4%	11.1%
Energy	6.5%	2.9%
Utilities	6.4%	2.0%
Consumer Cyclical	6.4%	11.0%
Industrials	6.3%	9.0%
Real Estate	1.4%	2.0%
Basic Materials	1.3%	1.0%

Return for Risk

QLV vs. ROE — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

QLV

QLV Risk / Return Rank: 83
QLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
QLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
QLV Omega Ratio Rank: 85
QLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QLV Martin Ratio Rank: 81

ROE

ROE Risk / Return Rank: 90
ROE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ROE Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
ROE Omega Ratio Rank: 87
ROE Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
ROE Martin Ratio Rank: 93

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QLV vs. ROE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FlexShares US Quality Low Volatility Index Fund (QLV) and Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE). 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.

	QLV	ROE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	2.32	-0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	3.09	+0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.40	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.71	4.02	-1.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.17	17.11	-5.95

QLV vs. ROE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLV Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is comparable to the ROE Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLV and ROE, 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

QLV vs. ROE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLV drawdown since its inception was -33.71%, which is greater than ROE's maximum drawdown of -19.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLV and ROE.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLV	ROE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.71%	-19.10%	-14.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.19%	-8.66%	+2.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.05%	-19.10%	+7.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.93%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.34%	+0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.93%	-2.54%	-1.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.50%	2.03%	-0.53%

Volatility

QLV vs. ROE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FlexShares US Quality Low Volatility Index Fund (QLV) is 2.30%, while Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE) has a volatility of 3.61%. This indicates that QLV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ROE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLV	ROE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.30%	3.61%	-1.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.98%	11.74%	-5.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.88%	15.05%	-7.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.64%	15.87%	-3.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.43%	15.87%	+0.56%

QLV vs. ROE - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLV has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is lower than ROE's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLV vs. ROE - Dividend Comparison

QLV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.52%, more than ROE's 1.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
QLV FlexShares US Quality Low Volatility Index Fund	1.52%	1.60%	1.66%	1.60%	1.74%	0.96%	1.24%	0.58%
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	1.00%	0.97%	1.18%	0.68%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QLV and ROE in my portfolio?

QLV and ROE have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QLV or ROE?

ROE has higher volatility (3.61%) compared to QLV (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLV dropped -33.71% vs ROE's -19.10%.

Which ETF is better, QLV or ROE?

On 3-year performance, ROE leads with 21.23% vs 15.60% for QLV. On fees, QLV is cheaper at 0.22% per year. On volatility, QLV has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLV or ROE?

Over the 3-year period, ROE has performed better with a 21.23% return vs 15.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLV or ROE?

QLV is cheaper with a 0.22% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ROE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QLV or ROE?

QLV has the higher dividend yield at 1.52%, compared with 1.00% for ROE.

What is the main difference between QLV and ROE?

They also come from different issuers: Northern Trust and Astoria. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for QLV and 0.49% for ROE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ROE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 2.13), 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.