QLV vs RECS
Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF vs Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF
Which is better, QLV or RECS?
Each has led over a different period.
QLV has a lower expense ratio. QLV led over 1Y, RECS over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. QLV is less concentrated, with 36.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 43.1%.
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 | QLV | RECS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.08%Best | 0.15% |
| AUM | $190M | $6.0B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.43% | 1.00% |
| Holdings | 246 | 716 |
| YTD Return | +13.84%Best | +6.96% |
| 1Y Return | +15.83%Best | +10.07% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +16.91% | +20.81%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.78% | +11.83%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.6%Best | 16.1% |
| Max Drawdown | -34.0%Best | -34.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,945 | $17,490Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 36.8%Best | 43.1% |
| Fund Family | Northern Trust Asset Management | Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 15, 2019 | Sep 25, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 16, 2019 to Nov 6, 2026 (7.3 years).
QLV vs RECS 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 7.3 years both funds cover.
QLV vs RECS Performance
Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF (QLV) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Over the past year QLV returned +15.83% while RECS returned +10.07%. Year to date, QLV is up 13.84% versus a gain of 6.96% for RECS.
Over three years, QLV compounded at +16.91% per year against +20.81% for RECS; over five years the annualized figures are +9.78% and +11.83% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, RECS has the edge at +15.74% annualized vs +11.48%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RECS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.1% compared with 13.6% for QLV. 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 -34.0% for QLV and -34.3% for RECS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QLV charges 0.08% per year while RECS charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $8 vs $15 annually, a gap of $7 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QLV currently yields 1.43% against 1.00% for RECS.
Holdings Overlap
35.8% of QLV's money is in holdings RECS also owns. 43.8% of RECS's money is in holdings QLV also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
38 positions in common, counted across the 118 positions we hold weights for in QLV and 354 in RECS, against full books of 246 and 716.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 303 positions for RECS that do not appear in our book for QLV (55.4% of the fund), and 73 for QLV that do not appear in RECS (60.3%).
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 QLV | Weight in RECS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple Inc | 6.17% | 12.24% | 6.07% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 6.33% | 12.07% | 5.74% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.06% | 4.71% | 3.65% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 1.71% | 2.48% | 0.77% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 0.46% | 2.12% | 1.66% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 0.88% | 1.65% | 0.77% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 1.73% | 0.69% | 1.04% |
| TJXTjx Cos., Inc. | 0.88% | 1.40% | 0.52% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks Inc. | 1.05% | 0.69% | 0.36% |
| PGRProgressive Corporation | 0.91% | 0.64% | 0.27% |
43.8% of RECS is already inside QLV.
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, QLV or RECS?
QLV has an expense ratio of 0.08% while RECS charges 0.15%. QLV is the cheaper option, by $7 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QLV or RECS?
Over the past year QLV returned +15.83% vs +10.07% for RECS, so QLV leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), QLV annualized +11.48% vs +15.74% for RECS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QLV or RECS?
RECS has been the more volatile fund at 16.1% annualized versus 13.6% for QLV. Worst drawdown: QLV -34.0% vs RECS -34.3%.
Should I hold both QLV and RECS?
QLV and RECS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 QLV and RECS?
43.8% of RECS's money is in holdings QLV also owns. 43.8% of RECS's is in holdings QLV also owns. They hold 38 positions in common, counted across the 118 positions we hold weights for in QLV and 354 in RECS.
Which pays a higher dividend, QLV or RECS?
QLV yields 1.43% while RECS yields 1.00%, so QLV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RECS better than QLV?
QLV has a lower expense ratio. QLV led over 1Y, RECS over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. QLV is less concentrated, with 36.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 43.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.