SQLV vs. SMCF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SQLV (Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF) and SMCF (Themes US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. SQLV is actively managed, while SMCF is passively managed. Over the past year, SQLV returned 25.91% vs 32.87% for SMCF. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SQLV charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for SMCF.

Performance

SQLV vs. SMCF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF (SQLV) and Themes US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions ETF (SMCF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SQLV achieves a 12.76% return, which is significantly lower than SMCF's 13.75% return.

SQLV

• 1D: -1.66%
• 1M: 1.74%
• YTD: 12.76%
• 6M: 12.70%
• 1Y: 25.91%
• 3Y*: 12.10%
• 5Y*: 6.01%
• 10Y*: —

SMCF

• 1D: -1.14%
• 1M: -1.09%
• YTD: 13.75%
• 6M: 13.63%
• 1Y: 32.87%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SQLV vs. SMCF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SQLV Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF	12.76%	2.50%	4.76%	4.50%
SMCF Themes US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions ETF	13.75%	9.56%	16.30%	4.47%

Correlation

The correlation between SQLV and SMCF 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 Dec 14, 2023	0.86

The correlation between SQLV and SMCF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

SQLV vs. SMCF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SQLV	SMCF
Financial Services	18.7%	50.0%
Healthcare	18.0%	4.4%
Technology	15.4%	11.0%
Consumer Cyclical	14.2%	2.6%
Industrials	10.3%	9.8%
Consumer Defensive	8.7%	1.4%
Communication Services	5.3%	1.5%
Energy	4.4%	18.2%
Basic Materials	4.2%	0.6%
Real Estate	0.6%	0.5%
Utilities	0.3%	-

Return for Risk

SQLV vs. SMCF — Risk / Return Rank

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

SQLV

SQLV Risk / Return Rank: 47
SQLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
SQLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
SQLV Omega Ratio Rank: 39
SQLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
SQLV Martin Ratio Rank: 52

SMCF

SMCF Risk / Return Rank: 67
SMCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
SMCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
SMCF Omega Ratio Rank: 59
SMCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
SMCF Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

SQLV vs. SMCF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF (SQLV) and Themes US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions ETF (SMCF). 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.

	SQLV	SMCF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.48	2.05	-0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.18	2.95	-0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.36	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.94	4.63	-1.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.77	12.46	-3.69
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SQLV vs. SMCF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SQLV Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is comparable to the SMCF Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SQLV and SMCF, 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

	SQLV	SMCF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.48	2.05	-0.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.38	0.91	-0.52

Drawdowns

SQLV vs. SMCF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SQLV drawdown since its inception was -48.34%, which is greater than SMCF's maximum drawdown of -28.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SQLV and SMCF.

Drawdown Indicators

	SQLV	SMCF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.34%	-28.48%	-19.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.84%	-7.13%	-1.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.86%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.66%	-2.44%	+0.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.95%	-5.29%	-3.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.96%	2.65%	+0.31%

Volatility

SQLV vs. SMCF - Volatility Comparison

Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF (SQLV) has a higher volatility of 4.30% compared to Themes US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions ETF (SMCF) at 3.55%. This indicates that SQLV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SMCF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SQLV	SMCF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.30%	3.55%	+0.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.36%	10.00%	+1.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.70%	16.18%	+1.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.99%	20.31%	+0.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.36%	20.31%	+3.05%

SQLV vs. SMCF - Expense Ratio Comparison

SQLV has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than SMCF's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

SQLV vs. SMCF - Dividend Comparison

SQLV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, less than SMCF's 3.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
SMCF Themes US Small Cap Cash Flow Champions ETF	3.44%	3.91%	0.61%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SQLV Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF	1.01%	1.15%	1.11%	1.09%	1.24%	1.12%	1.22%	1.20%	1.08%	0.40%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SQLV and SMCF in my portfolio?

SQLV and SMCF 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, SQLV or SMCF?

SQLV has higher volatility (4.30%) compared to SMCF (3.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SQLV dropped -48.34% vs SMCF's -28.48%.

Which ETF is better, SQLV or SMCF?

On 1-year performance, SMCF leads with 32.87% vs 25.91% for SQLV. On fees, SMCF is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, SMCF has been the lower-risk option at 3.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SQLV or SMCF?

Over the 1-year period, SMCF has performed better with a 32.87% return vs 25.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SQLV or SMCF?

SMCF is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for SQLV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SQLV or SMCF?

SMCF has the higher dividend yield at 3.44%, compared with 1.01% for SQLV.

What is the main difference between SQLV and SMCF?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Themes. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for SQLV and 0.29% for SMCF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SMCF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.48), 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.