QLC vs VOO
Northern Trust US Quality Large Cap ETF vs Vanguard S&P 500 ETF
Which is better, QLC or VOO?
QLC has been ahead.
VOO has a lower expense ratio. QLC led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. QLC is less concentrated, with 35.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.6%.
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 | QLC | VOO |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.25% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $1.1B | $997.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.91% | 1.04% |
| Holdings | 181 | 509 |
| YTD Return | +12.67%Best | +12.37% |
| 1Y Return | +18.67%Best | +16.61% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +23.88%Best | +21.37% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.91%Best | +13.49% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.4% | 15.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -35.9% | -34.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $20,035Best | $18,827 |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.2%Best | 37.6% |
| Fund Family | Northern Trust Asset Management | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 23, 2015 | Sep 7, 2010 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 24, 2015 to Sep 18, 2026 (11 years).
QLC vs VOO 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 11 years both funds cover.
QLC vs VOO Performance
Northern Trust US Quality Large Cap ETF (QLC) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year QLC returned +18.67% while VOO returned +16.61%. Year to date, QLC is up 12.67% versus a gain of 12.37% for VOO.
Over three years, QLC compounded at +23.88% per year against +21.37% for VOO; over five years the annualized figures are +14.91% and +13.49% respectively. Across the full 11-year window we track, QLC has the edge at +14.17% annualized vs +14.17%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QLC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.4% compared with 15.1% for VOO. 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 -35.9% for QLC and -34.3% for VOO. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QLC charges 0.25% per year while VOO charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $25 vs $3 annually, a gap of $22 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QLC currently yields 0.91% against 1.04% for VOO.
Holdings Overlap
95.5% of QLC's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 63.5% of VOO's money is in holdings QLC also owns.
Most of QLC is already inside VOO. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
141 positions in common, counted across the 157 positions we hold weights for in QLC and 494 in VOO, against full books of 181 and 509.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 346 positions for VOO that do not appear in our book for QLC (35.7% of the fund), and 15 for QLC that do not appear in VOO (3.3%).
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 QLC | Weight in VOO | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.63% | 7.55% | 0.08% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.53% | 7.05% | 1.52% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.93% | 5.36% | 1.43% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 3.80% | 3.24% | 0.56% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.47% | 4.13% | 1.66% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc | 3.35% | 2.62% | 0.73% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.73% | 2.86% | 0.13% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.98% | 1.44% | 0.54% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.95% | 1.46% | 0.49% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.41% | 1.90% | 0.49% |
95.5% of QLC is already inside VOO.
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, QLC or VOO?
QLC has an expense ratio of 0.25% while VOO charges 0.03%. VOO is the cheaper option, by $22 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QLC or VOO?
Over the past year QLC returned +18.67% vs +16.61% for VOO, so QLC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (11 years), QLC annualized +14.17% vs +14.17% for VOO. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QLC or VOO?
QLC has been the more volatile fund at 16.4% annualized versus 15.1% for VOO. Worst drawdown: QLC -35.9% vs VOO -34.3%.
Should I hold both QLC and VOO?
QLC and VOO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 QLC and VOO?
95.5% of QLC's money is in holdings VOO also owns. 63.5% of VOO's is in holdings QLC also owns. They hold 141 positions in common, counted across the 157 positions we hold weights for in QLC and 494 in VOO.
Which pays a higher dividend, QLC or VOO?
QLC yields 0.91% while VOO yields 1.04%, so VOO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VOO better than QLC?
VOO has a lower expense ratio. QLC led over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. QLC is less concentrated, with 35.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.