QTUM vs. FLTR

Last updated Jun 18, 2026

QTUM (Defiance Quantum ETF) and FLTR (VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QTUM is a Technology Equities fund tracking the BlueStar Machine Learning and Quantum Computing Index, while FLTR is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the MVIS US Investment Grade Floating Rate Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QTUM returned 28.78%/yr vs 4.53%/yr for FLTR. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QTUM charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLTR.

Performance

QTUM vs. FLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Defiance Quantum ETF (QTUM) and VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QTUM achieves a 48.44% return, which is significantly higher than FLTR's 2.11% return.

QTUM

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: 14.43%
• YTD: 48.44%
• 6M: 52.53%
• 1Y: 85.99%
• 3Y*: 48.81%
• 5Y*: 28.78%
• 10Y*: —

FLTR

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.50%
• YTD: 2.11%
• 6M: 2.40%
• 1Y: 5.34%
• 3Y*: 6.13%
• 5Y*: 4.53%
• 10Y*: 3.50%

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

QTUM vs. FLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
QTUM Defiance Quantum ETF	48.44%	36.65%	50.54%	39.86%	-28.80%	35.18%	42.05%	47.99%	-19.44%
FLTR VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF	2.11%	5.22%	7.38%	7.41%	0.74%	0.55%	1.44%	5.70%	-1.32%

Correlation

The correlation between QTUM and FLTR is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.17
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.21
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2018	0.19

Return for Risk

QTUM vs. FLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

QTUM

QTUM Risk / Return Rank: 89
QTUM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
QTUM Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
QTUM Omega Ratio Rank: 85
QTUM Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
QTUM Martin Ratio Rank: 92

FLTR

FLTR Risk / Return Rank: 99
FLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
FLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

QTUM vs. FLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Defiance Quantum ETF (QTUM) and VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). 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.

	QTUM	FLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.01	6.68	-3.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.50	12.42	-8.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	3.10	-1.62
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.67	17.09	-11.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.44	100.68	-80.24

QTUM vs. FLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QTUM Sharpe Ratio is 3.01, which is lower than the FLTR Sharpe Ratio of 6.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QTUM and FLTR, 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

QTUM vs. FLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QTUM drawdown since its inception was -38.45%, which is greater than FLTR's maximum drawdown of -17.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QTUM and FLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	QTUM	FLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.45%	-17.84%	-20.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.26%	-0.31%	-14.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.39%	-1.93%	-23.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.45%	-3.06%	-35.39%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-17.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.74%	-0.08%	-3.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.24%	-0.67%	-7.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.22%	0.05%	+4.17%

Volatility

QTUM vs. FLTR - Volatility Comparison

Defiance Quantum ETF (QTUM) has a higher volatility of 14.64% compared to VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR) at 0.29%. This indicates that QTUM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QTUM	FLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.64%	0.29%	+14.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.47%	0.65%	+22.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.78%	0.80%	+27.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.10%	2.13%	+24.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.45%	5.00%	+22.45%

QTUM vs. FLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

QTUM has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than FLTR's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

QTUM vs. FLTR - Dividend Comparison

QTUM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.72%, less than FLTR's 4.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLTR VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF	4.72%	4.97%	5.93%	6.07%	2.29%	0.63%	1.49%	3.05%	2.67%	1.69%	1.16%	0.71%
QTUM Defiance Quantum ETF	0.72%	1.01%	0.61%	0.81%	1.46%	0.48%	0.42%	0.61%	0.21%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QTUM and FLTR in my portfolio?

QTUM and FLTR have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QTUM or FLTR?

QTUM has higher volatility (14.64%) compared to FLTR (0.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QTUM dropped -38.45% vs FLTR's -17.84%.

Which ETF is better, QTUM or FLTR?

On 5-year performance, QTUM leads with 28.78% vs 4.53% for FLTR. On fees, FLTR is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, FLTR has been the lower-risk option at 0.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QTUM or FLTR?

Over the 5-year period, QTUM has performed better with a 28.78% return vs 4.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QTUM or FLTR?

FLTR is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for QTUM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QTUM or FLTR?

FLTR has the higher dividend yield at 4.72%, compared with 0.72% for QTUM.

What is the main difference between QTUM and FLTR?

QTUM is categorized as Technology Equities, while FLTR is Corporate Bonds. QTUM tracks BlueStar Machine Learning and Quantum Computing Index, while FLTR tracks MVIS US Investment Grade Floating Rate Index. They also come from different issuers: Defiance and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for QTUM and 0.14% for FLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.68 vs 3.01), 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.