AVTM vs FLQL

AVTM vs FLQL

Which is better, AVTM or FLQL?

FLQL costs less.

FLQL has a lower expense ratio. FLQL is less concentrated, with 38.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 40.3%.

Lower Fees: FLQLLess Concentrated: FLQL

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

MetricAVTMFLQL
Expense Ratio0.22%0.15%Best
AUM-$2.2B
Dividend Yield-1.02%
Holdings3,399219
YTD Return+11.82%+14.41%Best
1Y Return-+18.13%
3Y Return (annualized)-+23.40%
5Y Return (annualized)-+14.90%
Top 10 Weight40.3%38.6%Best
Fund FamilyAvantis InvestorsFranklin Templeton Investments (US)
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionJan 29, 2026Apr 26, 2017

Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

AVTM 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.

Compare AVTM against instead:AVTM vs SPYAVTM vs QQQAVTM vs VOOAVTM vs VTIFLQL against:FLQL vs VXUS

AVTM vs FLQL Performance

Avantis Total Equity Markets ETF (AVTM) is an ETF from Avantis Investors and Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQL) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Year to date, AVTM is up 11.82% versus a gain of 14.41% for FLQL.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

AVTM charges 0.22% per year while FLQL charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $22 vs $15 annually, a gap of $7 per year that compounds over a long holding period.

Holdings Overlap

AVTM already in FLQL44.2%
FLQL already in AVTM88.7%

44.2% of AVTM's money is in holdings FLQL also owns. 88.7% of FLQL's money is in holdings AVTM also owns.

Most of FLQL is already inside AVTM. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.

141 positions in common, counted across the 947 positions we hold weights for in AVTM and 214 in FLQL, against full books of 3,399 and 219.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 70 positions for FLQL that do not appear in our book for AVTM (10.7% of the fund), and 538 for AVTM that do not appear in FLQL (50.5%).

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

StockWeight in AVTMWeight in FLQLDifference
NVDANvidia Corp5.68%7.35%1.67%
AAPLApple, Inc4.67%7.91%3.24%
MSFTMicrosoft Corp3.29%5.08%1.79%
AMZNAmazon.Com Inc2.17%3.32%1.15%
GOOGAlphabet Inc. C2.36%2.87%0.51%
GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A1.17%3.57%2.40%
METAMeta Platforms Inc2.10%2.09%0.01%
AVGOBroadcom Inc1.06%2.37%1.31%
GSGoldman Sachs Group Inc/The1.56%1.33%0.23%
XOMExxon Mobil Corp.0.66%2.09%1.43%

88.7% of FLQL is already inside AVTM.

You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.

AVTMFLQL

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, AVTM or FLQL?

AVTM has an expense ratio of 0.22% while FLQL charges 0.15%. FLQL is the cheaper option, by $7 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between AVTM and FLQL?

88.7% of FLQL's money is in holdings AVTM also owns. 88.7% of FLQL's is in holdings AVTM also owns. They hold 141 positions in common, counted across the 947 positions we hold weights for in AVTM and 214 in FLQL.

Is FLQL better than AVTM?

FLQL has a lower expense ratio. FLQL is less concentrated, with 38.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 40.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.