EGGQ vs FTCS
NestYield Visionary ETF vs First Trust Capital Strength ETF
Which is better, EGGQ or FTCS?
FTCS has been ahead.
FTCS has a lower expense ratio. FTCS led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | EGGQ | FTCS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.93% | 0.53%Best |
| AUM | $60M | $7.9B |
| Dividend Yield | 10.66% | 1.12% |
| Holdings | 70 | 102 |
| YTD Return | -10.06% | +13.88%Best |
| 1Y Return | -11.92% | +14.10%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.02% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +6.47% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 38.1% | 11.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -46.6% | -10.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.9 years | $11,167 | $12,181Best |
| Fund Family | NestYield | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 26, 2024 | Jul 6, 2006 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 30, 2024 to Nov 12, 2026 (1.9 years).
EGGQ vs FTCS 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 1.9 years both funds cover.
EGGQ vs FTCS Performance
NestYield Visionary ETF (EGGQ) is an ETF from NestYield and First Trust Capital Strength ETF (FTCS) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year EGGQ returned -11.92% while FTCS returned +14.10%. Year to date, EGGQ is down 10.06% versus a gain of 13.88% for FTCS.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EGGQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 38.1% compared with 11.6% for FTCS. 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 -46.6% for EGGQ and -10.5% for FTCS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at -0.37. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EGGQ charges 0.93% per year while FTCS charges 0.53%. On a $10,000 position that is $93 vs $53 annually, a gap of $40 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EGGQ currently yields 10.66% against 1.12% for FTCS.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of EGGQ and FTCS you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EGGQ or FTCS?
EGGQ has an expense ratio of 0.93% while FTCS charges 0.53%. FTCS is the cheaper option, by $40 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, EGGQ or FTCS?
Over the past year EGGQ returned -11.92% vs +14.10% for FTCS, so FTCS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), EGGQ annualized +5.98% vs +10.94% for FTCS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, EGGQ or FTCS?
EGGQ has been the more volatile fund at 38.1% annualized versus 11.6% for FTCS. Worst drawdown: EGGQ -46.6% vs FTCS -10.5%.
Should I hold both EGGQ and FTCS?
EGGQ and FTCS have a monthly-return correlation of -0.37, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, EGGQ or FTCS?
EGGQ yields 10.66% while FTCS yields 1.12%, so EGGQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FTCS better than EGGQ?
FTCS has a lower expense ratio. FTCS led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.