FLQL vs VYM
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF vs Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF
Which is better, FLQL or VYM?
Large Cap Blend against Large Cap Value.
VYM has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, VYM over 1Y. VYM is less concentrated, with 25.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.3%.
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 | FLQL | VYM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.04%Best |
| AUM | $2.1B | $81.6B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.04% | 2.24% |
| Holdings | 220 | 613 |
| YTD Return | +13.45% | +15.29%Best |
| 1Y Return | +19.97% | +22.23%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.55%Best | +18.81% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.39%Best | +12.14% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0% | 14.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.6%Best | -35.7% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,744Best | $17,734 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.3% | 25.9%Best |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Apr 26, 2017 | Nov 10, 2006 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 28, 2017 to Sep 3, 2026 (9.3 years).
FLQL vs VYM 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 9.3 years both funds cover.
FLQL vs VYM Performance
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQL) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (VYM) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year FLQL returned +19.97% while VYM returned +22.23%. Year to date, FLQL is up 13.45% versus a gain of 15.29% for VYM.
Over three years, FLQL compounded at +21.55% per year against +18.81% for VYM; over five years the annualized figures are +13.39% and +12.14% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, FLQL has the edge at +14.68% annualized vs +10.26%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FLQL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.0% compared with 14.6% for VYM. 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 -33.6% for FLQL and -35.7% for VYM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FLQL charges 0.15% per year while VYM charges 0.04%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $4 annually, a gap of $11 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLQL currently yields 1.04% against 2.24% for VYM.
Holdings Overlap
39.7% of FLQL's money is in holdings VYM also owns. 42.1% of VYM's money is in holdings FLQL also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
95 positions in common, counted across the 215 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 603 in VYM, against full books of 220 and 613.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 475 positions for VYM that do not appear in our book for FLQL (55.4% of the fund), and 115 for FLQL that do not appear in VYM (59.4%).
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 FLQL | Weight in VYM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.71% | 7.29% | 4.58% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.20% | 3.38% | 2.18% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 1.85% | 2.54% | 0.69% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 1.91% | 2.36% | 0.45% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 1.56% | 1.93% | 0.37% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 1.60% | 1.85% | 0.25% |
| CATCaterpillar, Inc. | 1.43% | 2.01% | 0.58% |
| MRKMerck & Company Inc | 1.26% | 1.32% | 0.06% |
| PMPhilip Morris International Inc. | 1.35% | 1.17% | 0.18% |
| GSGoldman Sachs Group Inc/The | 1.35% | 1.15% | 0.20% |
42.1% of VYM 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, FLQL or VYM?
FLQL has an expense ratio of 0.15% while VYM charges 0.04%. VYM is the cheaper option, by $11 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLQL or VYM?
Over the past year FLQL returned +19.97% vs +22.23% for VYM, so VYM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), FLQL annualized +14.68% vs +10.26% for VYM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLQL or VYM?
FLQL has been the more volatile fund at 15.0% annualized versus 14.6% for VYM. Worst drawdown: FLQL -33.6% vs VYM -35.7%.
Should I hold both FLQL and VYM?
FLQL and VYM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FLQL and VYM?
42.1% of VYM's money is in holdings FLQL also owns. 42.1% of VYM's is in holdings FLQL also owns. They hold 95 positions in common, counted across the 215 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 603 in VYM.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLQL or VYM?
FLQL yields 1.04% while VYM yields 2.24%, so VYM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VYM better than FLQL?
VYM has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, VYM over 1Y. VYM is less concentrated, with 25.9% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.