PRF vs QDF
Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF vs Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF
Which is better, PRF or QDF?
Nearly the same fund. PRF costs less.
PRF has a lower expense ratio. PRF led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. PRF is less concentrated, with 23.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.3%.
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 | PRF | QDF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.34%Best | 0.37% |
| AUM | $10.0B | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.36% | 1.52% |
| Holdings | 2,000 | 146 |
| YTD Return | +18.98%Best | +12.89% |
| 1Y Return | +25.61%Best | +17.43% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.16%Best | +19.13% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.14%Best | +11.89% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.8% | 14.3%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -38.7% | -37.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,539Best | $17,537 |
| Top 10 Weight | 23.7%Best | 39.3% |
| Fund Family | Invesco (US) | Northern Trust Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 19, 2005 | Dec 14, 2012 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 19, 2012 to Oct 14, 2026 (13.8 years).
PRF vs QDF 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 13.8 years both funds cover.
PRF vs QDF Performance
Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF) is an ETF from Invesco (US) and Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF (QDF) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year PRF returned +25.61% while QDF returned +17.43%. Year to date, PRF is up 18.98% versus a gain of 12.89% for QDF.
Over three years, PRF compounded at +22.16% per year against +19.13% for QDF; over five years the annualized figures are +13.14% and +11.89% respectively. Across the full 14-year window we track, PRF has the edge at +12.13% annualized vs +10.55%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
PRF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.8% compared with 14.3% for QDF. 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 -38.7% for PRF and -37.2% for QDF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.97. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
PRF charges 0.34% per year while QDF charges 0.37%. On a $10,000 position that is $34 vs $37 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, PRF currently yields 1.36% against 1.52% for QDF.
Holdings Overlap
38.2% of PRF's money is in holdings QDF also owns. 92.2% of QDF's money is in holdings PRF also owns.
Most of QDF is already inside PRF. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
121 positions in common, counted across the 907 positions we hold weights for in PRF and 140 in QDF, against full books of 2,000 and 146.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 17 positions for QDF that do not appear in our book for PRF (6.7% of the fund), and 754 for PRF that do not appear in QDF (57.8%).
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 PRF | Weight in QDF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.67% | 9.39% | 4.72% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 0.81% | 8.02% | 7.21% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.18% | 4.55% | 1.37% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.37% | 2.31% | 1.06% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.62% | 2.45% | 0.83% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 1.07% | 2.88% | 1.81% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.10% | 1.57% | 0.53% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 0.26% | 2.99% | 2.73% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 0.54% | 2.59% | 2.05% |
| GEGeneral Electric Co. | 0.16% | 2.27% | 2.11% |
92.2% of QDF is already inside PRF.
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, PRF or QDF?
PRF has an expense ratio of 0.34% while QDF charges 0.37%. PRF is the cheaper option, by $3 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, PRF or QDF?
Over the past year PRF returned +25.61% vs +17.43% for QDF, so PRF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (14 years), PRF annualized +12.13% vs +10.55% for QDF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, PRF or QDF?
PRF has been the more volatile fund at 14.8% annualized versus 14.3% for QDF. Worst drawdown: PRF -38.7% vs QDF -37.2%.
Should I hold both PRF and QDF?
PRF and QDF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.97, 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 PRF and QDF?
92.2% of QDF's money is in holdings PRF also owns. 92.2% of QDF's is in holdings PRF also owns. They hold 121 positions in common, counted across the 907 positions we hold weights for in PRF and 140 in QDF.
Which pays a higher dividend, PRF or QDF?
PRF yields 1.36% while QDF yields 1.52%, so QDF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QDF better than PRF?
PRF has a lower expense ratio. PRF led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. PRF is less concentrated, with 23.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.