PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QUS vs. ILCG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QUS vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QUS achieves a 6.67% return, which is significantly lower than ILCG's 14.48% return. Over the past 10 years, QUS has underperformed ILCG with an annualized return of 13.67%, while ILCG has yielded a comparatively higher 18.15% annualized return.


QUS

1D
-0.43%
1M
2.68%
YTD
6.67%
6M
6.93%
1Y
17.65%
3Y*
17.53%
5Y*
11.08%
10Y*
13.67%

ILCG

1D
-1.02%
1M
7.68%
YTD
14.48%
6M
14.61%
1Y
29.51%
3Y*
26.55%
5Y*
14.95%
10Y*
18.15%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QUS vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QUS
SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF
6.67%14.13%18.99%21.78%-14.15%26.72%12.40%32.45%-3.66%21.67%
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
14.48%16.71%32.82%40.41%-31.75%24.33%38.56%33.22%2.06%30.57%

Correlation

The correlation between QUS and ILCG is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.68

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.76

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.84

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 17, 2015

0.78

The correlation between QUS and ILCG shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (1 year) to 0.84 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QUS vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QUS
ILCG

Technology

26.3%
49.8%

Financial Services

14.6%
6.0%

Healthcare

13.4%
5.3%

Communication Services

10.2%
14.5%

Consumer Defensive

9.2%
1.6%

Industrials

8.6%
8.3%

Consumer Cyclical

5.8%
10.6%

Energy

4.6%
0.5%

Utilities

3.6%
0.8%

Basic Materials

2.3%
1.1%

Real Estate

1.4%
1.4%

Technology

QUS
26.3%
ILCG
49.8%

Financial Services

QUS
14.6%
ILCG
6.0%

Healthcare

QUS
13.4%
ILCG
5.3%

Communication Services

QUS
10.2%
ILCG
14.5%

Consumer Defensive

QUS
9.2%
ILCG
1.6%

Industrials

QUS
8.6%
ILCG
8.3%

Consumer Cyclical

QUS
5.8%
ILCG
10.6%

Energy

QUS
4.6%
ILCG
0.5%

Utilities

QUS
3.6%
ILCG
0.8%

Basic Materials

QUS
2.3%
ILCG
1.1%

Real Estate

QUS
1.4%
ILCG
1.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

QUS vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QUS
QUS Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
QUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
QUS Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
QUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
QUS Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank

ILCG
ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 4646
Overall Rank
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

QUS vs. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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.


QUSILCGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.13

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.36

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.32

+0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.59

1.89

+0.69

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.54

6.68

+4.86

QUS vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QUS Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is comparable to the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QUS and ILCG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


QUSILCGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.95

1.82

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.78

0.68

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

0.85

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.77

0.59

+0.18

Drawdowns

QUS vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QUS drawdown since its inception was -33.78%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QUS and ILCG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QUSILCGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.78%

-52.98%

+19.20%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.85%

-15.65%

+8.80%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.94%

-23.10%

+9.16%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.30%

-35.38%

+13.08%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.78%

-35.38%

+1.60%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.50%

-1.02%

+0.52%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.70%

-8.22%

+4.52%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.53%

4.43%

-2.90%

Volatility

QUS vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS) is 1.78%, while iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) has a volatility of 4.40%. This indicates that QUS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QUSILCGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.78%

4.40%

-2.62%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.66%

12.81%

-6.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.09%

16.31%

-7.22%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.33%

22.00%

-7.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.42%

21.53%

-5.11%

QUS vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QUS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

QUS vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

QUS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, more than ILCG's 0.40% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ILCG
iShares Morningstar Growth ETF
0.40%0.47%0.50%0.69%0.75%0.34%0.28%0.54%0.81%0.89%0.95%0.99%
QUS
SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF
1.31%1.38%1.49%1.57%1.68%1.27%1.73%1.81%2.12%1.86%2.07%1.48%

Frequently Asked Questions


QUS and ILCG have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ILCG has higher volatility (4.40%) compared to QUS (1.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QUS dropped -33.78% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

On 10-year performance, ILCG leads with 18.15% vs 13.67% for QUS. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, QUS has been the lower-risk option at 1.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 18.15% return vs 13.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for QUS.

QUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.31%, compared with 0.40% for ILCG.

QUS tracks MSCI USA Factor Mix A-Series Capped (USD), while ILCG tracks Morningstar US Large-Mid Cap Broad Growth Index Gross. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for QUS and 0.04% for ILCG.

QUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 1.82), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QUS and ILCG

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer