QVML vs. LRGF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

QVML (Invesco S&P 500 QVM Multi-factor ETF) and LRGF (iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QVML is a Multi-factor fund tracking the S&P 500 Quality, Value &Momentum Top 90% Multi-Factor Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while LRGF is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Diversified Multi-Factor. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QVML returned 22.47%/yr vs 22.80%/yr for LRGF. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. QVML charges 0.11%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for LRGF.

Performance

QVML vs. LRGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 QVM Multi-factor ETF (QVML) and iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QVML achieves a 11.17% return, which is significantly higher than LRGF's 10.50% return.

QVML

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: 5.12%
• YTD: 11.17%
• 6M: 11.48%
• 1Y: 27.60%
• 3Y*: 22.47%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LRGF

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 6.20%
• YTD: 10.50%
• 6M: 10.60%
• 1Y: 24.87%
• 3Y*: 22.80%
• 5Y*: 13.83%
• 10Y*: 14.03%

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

QVML vs. LRGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QVML Invesco S&P 500 QVM Multi-factor ETF	11.17%	17.74%	25.87%	22.19%	-16.25%	12.56%
LRGF iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF	10.50%	16.48%	26.59%	25.85%	-14.77%	9.43%

Correlation

The correlation between QVML and LRGF is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.97
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2021	0.97

The correlation between QVML and LRGF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

QVML vs. LRGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QVML	LRGF
Technology	35.5%	35.6%
Financial Services	12.8%	12.5%
Communication Services	11.9%	8.2%
Healthcare	8.7%	9.1%
Industrials	8.7%	8.1%
Consumer Cyclical	7.3%	11.2%
Consumer Defensive	5.5%	6.0%
Energy	3.6%	3.7%
Utilities	2.5%	2.3%
Basic Materials	1.9%	2.0%
Real Estate	1.6%	1.3%

Return for Risk

QVML vs. LRGF — Risk / Return Rank

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

QVML

QVML Risk / Return Rank: 71
QVML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
QVML Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
QVML Omega Ratio Rank: 70
QVML Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
QVML Martin Ratio Rank: 77

LRGF

LRGF Risk / Return Rank: 60
LRGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
LRGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
LRGF Omega Ratio Rank: 60
LRGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
LRGF Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

QVML vs. LRGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 QVM Multi-factor ETF (QVML) and iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF). 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.

	QVML	LRGF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.38	2.08	+0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.29	2.86	+0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.37	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.18	2.80	+0.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.85	11.62	+3.23
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QVML vs. LRGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QVML Sharpe Ratio is 2.38, which is comparable to the LRGF Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QVML and LRGF, 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

	QVML	LRGF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.38	2.08	+0.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.82	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.77	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.84	0.70	+0.15

Drawdowns

QVML vs. LRGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QVML drawdown since its inception was -23.52%, smaller than the maximum LRGF drawdown of -36.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QVML and LRGF.

Drawdown Indicators

	QVML	LRGF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.52%	-36.03%	+12.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.73%	-8.92%	+0.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.71%	-19.44%	+0.73%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.62%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.03%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.58%	-0.71%	+0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.40%	-4.54%	-0.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.86%	2.14%	-0.28%

Volatility

QVML vs. LRGF - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P 500 QVM Multi-factor ETF (QVML) and iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF (LRGF) have volatilities of 2.91% and 2.92%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QVML	LRGF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.91%	2.92%	-0.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.96%	9.09%	-0.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.69%	12.06%	-0.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.59%	17.03%	-0.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.59%	18.31%	-1.72%

QVML vs. LRGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

QVML has a 0.11% expense ratio, which is lower than LRGF's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

QVML vs. LRGF - Dividend Comparison

QVML's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%, less than LRGF's 1.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LRGF iShares MSCI USA Multifactor ETF	1.06%	1.16%	1.23%	1.49%	1.78%	1.05%	1.35%	1.76%	3.27%	1.68%	1.56%	0.83%
QVML Invesco S&P 500 QVM Multi-factor ETF	0.99%	1.10%	1.15%	1.43%	1.72%	0.62%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QVML and LRGF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, QVML and LRGF move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, QVML or LRGF?

LRGF has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to QVML (2.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QVML dropped -23.52% vs LRGF's -36.03%.

Which ETF is better, QVML or LRGF?

On 3-year performance, LRGF leads with 22.80% vs 22.47% for QVML. On fees, QVML is cheaper at 0.11% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QVML or LRGF?

Over the 3-year period, LRGF has performed better with a 22.80% return vs 22.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QVML or LRGF?

QVML is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for LRGF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QVML or LRGF?

LRGF has the higher dividend yield at 1.06%, compared with 0.99% for QVML.

What is the main difference between QVML and LRGF?

QVML is categorized as Multi-factor, while LRGF is Large Cap Blend Equities. QVML tracks S&P 500 Quality, Value &Momentum Top 90% Multi-Factor Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while LRGF tracks MSCI USA Diversified Multi-Factor. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.11% for QVML and 0.20% for LRGF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QVML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 2.08), 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.