ABFL vs FLQL
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF vs Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF
Which is better, ABFL or FLQL?
Nearly the same fund. FLQL costs less.
FLQL has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. ABFL is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.6%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ABFL | FLQL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.15%Best |
| AUM | $534M | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.54% | 1.02% |
| Holdings | 58 | 219 |
| YTD Return | +13.12% | +14.13%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.29% | +17.84%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.45% | +22.94%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.05% | +14.74%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.1% | 15.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -35.0% | -33.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,889 | $19,887Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 33.3%Best | 38.6% |
| Fund Family | FCF Advisors | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 27, 2016 | Apr 26, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 28, 2017 to Oct 13, 2026 (9.5 years).
ABFL vs FLQL growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 9.5 years both funds cover.
ABFL vs FLQL Performance
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) is an ETF from FCF Advisors and Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQL) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year ABFL returned +14.29% while FLQL returned +17.84%. Year to date, ABFL is up 13.12% versus a gain of 14.13% for FLQL.
Over three years, ABFL compounded at +16.45% per year against +22.94% for FLQL; over five years the annualized figures are +11.05% and +14.74% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, FLQL has the edge at +14.57% annualized vs +13.12%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ABFL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.1% compared with 15.0% for FLQL. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -35.0% for ABFL and -33.6% for FLQL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ABFL charges 0.49% per year while FLQL charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $15 annually, a gap of $34 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ABFL currently yields 0.54% against 1.02% for FLQL.
Holdings Overlap
58.1% of ABFL's money is in holdings FLQL also owns. 32.7% of FLQL's money is in holdings ABFL also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
28 positions in common, counted across the 56 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 214 in FLQL, against full books of 58 and 219.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 182 positions for FLQL that do not appear in our book for ABFL (66.6% of the fund), and 27 for ABFL that do not appear in FLQL (40.3%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ABFL | Weight in FLQL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.52% | 7.91% | 2.39% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 5.04% | 7.35% | 2.31% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 3.48% | 2.37% | 1.11% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 2.94% | 1.70% | 1.24% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.93% | 1.27% | 1.66% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 2.64% | 1.37% | 1.27% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc. | 2.58% | 1.22% | 1.36% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 2.85% | 0.84% | 2.01% |
| KLACKla Corp | 2.40% | 1.19% | 1.21% |
| MOAltria Group Inc. | 2.36% | 0.85% | 1.51% |
58.1% of ABFL is already inside FLQL.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ABFL or FLQL?
ABFL has an expense ratio of 0.49% while FLQL charges 0.15%. FLQL is the cheaper option, by $34 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ABFL or FLQL?
Over the past year ABFL returned +14.29% vs +17.84% for FLQL, so FLQL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), ABFL annualized +13.12% vs +14.57% for FLQL. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ABFL or FLQL?
ABFL has been the more volatile fund at 16.1% annualized versus 15.0% for FLQL. Worst drawdown: ABFL -35.0% vs FLQL -33.6%.
Should I hold both ABFL and FLQL?
ABFL and FLQL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ABFL and FLQL?
58.1% of ABFL's money is in holdings FLQL also owns. 32.7% of FLQL's is in holdings ABFL also owns. They hold 28 positions in common, counted across the 56 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 214 in FLQL.
Which pays a higher dividend, ABFL or FLQL?
ABFL yields 0.54% while FLQL yields 1.02%, so FLQL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FLQL better than ABFL?
FLQL has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. ABFL is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.