TGCFX vs. QDVBX

Last updated Jun 18, 2026

TGCFX (TCW Core Fixed Income Fund) and QDVBX (Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans) are both Intermediate Core Bond funds. Over the past 5 years, TGCFX returned -0.23%/yr vs -0.01%/yr for QDVBX. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TGCFX charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for QDVBX.

Performance

TGCFX vs. QDVBX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Core Fixed Income Fund (TGCFX) and Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDVBX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TGCFX achieves a 0.57% return, which is significantly higher than QDVBX's 0.34% return.

TGCFX

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 1.52%
• YTD: 0.57%
• 6M: 0.72%
• 1Y: 4.93%
• 3Y*: 3.92%
• 5Y*: -0.23%
• 10Y*: 1.61%

QDVBX

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: 1.37%
• YTD: 0.34%
• 6M: 0.45%
• 1Y: 4.56%
• 3Y*: 4.44%
• 5Y*: -0.01%
• 10Y*: —

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

TGCFX vs. QDVBX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
TGCFX TCW Core Fixed Income Fund	0.57%	7.51%	0.75%	5.61%	-14.25%	-1.27%	8.79%	0.28%
QDVBX Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans	0.34%	7.64%	1.62%	6.37%	-14.31%	-0.37%	6.70%	-0.10%

Correlation

The correlation between TGCFX and QDVBX is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2019	0.91

The correlation between TGCFX and QDVBX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

TGCFX vs. QDVBX — Risk / Return Rank

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

TGCFX

TGCFX Risk / Return Rank: 22
TGCFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
TGCFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
TGCFX Omega Ratio Rank: 22
TGCFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
TGCFX Martin Ratio Rank: 20

QDVBX

QDVBX Risk / Return Rank: 23
QDVBX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
QDVBX Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
QDVBX Omega Ratio Rank: 23
QDVBX Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
QDVBX Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

TGCFX vs. QDVBX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Core Fixed Income Fund (TGCFX) and Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDVBX). 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.

	TGCFX	QDVBX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.30	1.33	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.94	2.03	-0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.24	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	1.65	+0.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.84	4.77	+0.07

TGCFX vs. QDVBX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TGCFX Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is comparable to the QDVBX Sharpe Ratio of 1.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TGCFX and QDVBX, 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

TGCFX vs. QDVBX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TGCFX drawdown since its inception was -19.37%, roughly equal to the maximum QDVBX drawdown of -19.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TGCFX and QDVBX.

Drawdown Indicators

	TGCFX	QDVBX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.37%	-19.86%	+0.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.15%	-3.00%	-0.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.12%	-5.37%	-1.75%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.37%	-19.86%	+0.49%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-19.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.66%	-1.75%	-0.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.61%	-6.65%	+3.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.09%	1.03%	+0.06%

Volatility

TGCFX vs. QDVBX - Volatility Comparison

TCW Core Fixed Income Fund (TGCFX) has a higher volatility of 1.20% compared to Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDVBX) at 1.07%. This indicates that TGCFX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QDVBX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TGCFX	QDVBX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.20%	1.07%	+0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.97%	2.60%	+0.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.06%	3.73%	+0.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.56%	6.61%	-0.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.22%	6.22%	-1.00%

TGCFX vs. QDVBX - Expense Ratio Comparison

TGCFX has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than QDVBX's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

TGCFX vs. QDVBX - Dividend Comparison

TGCFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.43%, more than QDVBX's 3.49% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
QDVBX Fisher Investments Institutional Group ESG Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans	3.49%	3.51%	3.52%	3.66%	2.56%	1.70%	3.28%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TGCFX TCW Core Fixed Income Fund	4.43%	4.51%	4.34%	3.66%	2.22%	1.56%	4.14%	2.63%	2.57%	2.17%	2.95%	2.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TGCFX and QDVBX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, TGCFX and QDVBX 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, TGCFX or QDVBX?

TGCFX has higher volatility (1.20%) compared to QDVBX (1.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TGCFX dropped -19.37% vs QDVBX's -19.86%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QDVBX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.33 vs 1.30), 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.