DFAC vs FLQL
Dimensional US Core Equity 2 ETF vs Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF
Which is better, DFAC or FLQL?
Nearly the same fund. FLQL costs less.
FLQL has a lower expense ratio. DFAC led over 1Y, FLQL over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. DFAC is less concentrated, with 26.8% 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 | DFAC | FLQL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.17% | 0.15%Best |
| AUM | $48.6B | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.89% | 1.02% |
| Holdings | 2,554 | 219 |
| YTD Return | +14.79%Best | +14.13% |
| 1Y Return | +19.93%Best | +17.84% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.05% | +22.94%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.31% | +14.74%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.6% | 15.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -23.1% | -21.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,869 | $19,887Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 26.8%Best | 38.6% |
| Fund Family | Dimensional | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 4, 2007 | Apr 26, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 14, 2021 to Oct 13, 2026 (5.3 years).
DFAC 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 5.3 years both funds cover.
DFAC vs FLQL Performance
Dimensional US Core Equity 2 ETF (DFAC) is an ETF from Dimensional and Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQL) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year DFAC returned +19.93% while FLQL returned +17.84%. Year to date, DFAC is up 14.79% versus a gain of 14.13% for FLQL.
Over three years, DFAC compounded at +21.05% per year against +22.94% for FLQL; over five years the annualized figures are +12.31% and +14.74% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
DFAC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.6% 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 -23.1% for DFAC and -21.4% 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
DFAC charges 0.17% per year while FLQL charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $17 vs $15 annually, a gap of $2 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, DFAC currently yields 0.89% against 1.02% for FLQL.
Holdings Overlap
46.2% of DFAC's money is in holdings FLQL also owns. 96.1% of FLQL's money is in holdings DFAC also owns.
Most of FLQL is already inside DFAC. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
188 positions in common, counted across the 2,510 positions we hold weights for in DFAC and 214 in FLQL, against full books of 2,554 and 219.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 22 positions for FLQL that do not appear in our book for DFAC (3.1% of the fund), and 1,266 for DFAC that do not appear in FLQL (50.9%).
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 DFAC | Weight in FLQL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.42% | 7.91% | 2.49% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 5.53% | 7.35% | 1.82% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.63% | 5.08% | 0.45% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.95% | 3.32% | 0.37% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 1.57% | 3.57% | 2.00% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.98% | 2.09% | 0.11% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 1.00% | 2.87% | 1.87% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.32% | 2.37% | 1.05% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 0.86% | 2.09% | 1.23% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.85% | 1.95% | 1.10% |
96.1% of FLQL is already inside DFAC.
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, DFAC or FLQL?
DFAC has an expense ratio of 0.17% while FLQL charges 0.15%. FLQL is the cheaper option, by $2 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, DFAC or FLQL?
Over the past year DFAC returned +19.93% vs +17.84% for FLQL, so DFAC leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, DFAC or FLQL?
DFAC has been the more volatile fund at 15.6% annualized versus 15.0% for FLQL. Worst drawdown: DFAC -23.1% vs FLQL -21.4%.
Should I hold both DFAC and FLQL?
DFAC 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 DFAC and FLQL?
96.1% of FLQL's money is in holdings DFAC also owns. 96.1% of FLQL's is in holdings DFAC also owns. They hold 188 positions in common, counted across the 2,510 positions we hold weights for in DFAC and 214 in FLQL.
Which pays a higher dividend, DFAC or FLQL?
DFAC yields 0.89% while FLQL yields 1.02%, so FLQL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FLQL better than DFAC?
FLQL has a lower expense ratio. DFAC led over 1Y, FLQL over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. DFAC is less concentrated, with 26.8% 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.