ACVF vs QLTY
American Conservative Values ETF vs GMO US Quality ETF
Which is better, ACVF or QLTY?
QLTY has been ahead.
QLTY has a lower expense ratio. QLTY led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. ACVF is less concentrated, with 28.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 45.5%.
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 | ACVF | QLTY |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.50%Best |
| AUM | $155M | $5.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.49% | 0.66% |
| Holdings | 778 | 90 |
| YTD Return | +11.40% | +14.13%Best |
| 1Y Return | +12.34% | +20.95%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.66% | +21.84%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.53% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 11.0%Best | 11.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -16.8%Best | -17.0% |
| $10,000 over 2.9 years | $16,196 | $17,733Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 28.8%Best | 45.5% |
| Fund Family | ACV ETFs | GMO |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 28, 2020 | Nov 13, 2023 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.9 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 15, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.9 years).
ACVF vs QLTY 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 2.9 years both funds cover.
ACVF vs QLTY Performance
American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF) is an ETF from ACV ETFs and GMO US Quality ETF (QLTY) is an ETF from GMO. Over the past year ACVF returned +12.34% while QLTY returned +20.95%. Year to date, ACVF is up 11.40% versus a gain of 14.13% for QLTY.
Over three years, ACVF compounded at +18.66% per year against +21.84% for QLTY.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
QLTY has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 11.9% compared with 11.0% for ACVF. 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 -16.8% for ACVF and -17.0% for QLTY. 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
ACVF charges 0.75% per year while QLTY charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $50 annually, a gap of $25 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACVF currently yields 0.49% against 0.66% for QLTY.
Holdings Overlap
30.1% of ACVF's money is in holdings QLTY also owns. 59.9% of QLTY's money is in holdings ACVF also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
28 positions in common, counted across the 387 positions we hold weights for in ACVF and 45 in QLTY, against full books of 778 and 90.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 17 positions for QLTY that do not appear in our book for ACVF (39.8% of the fund), and 345 for ACVF that do not appear in QLTY (69.2%).
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 ACVF | Weight in QLTY | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.34% | 8.00% | 2.66% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.46% | 3.30% | 5.16% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.52% | 3.70% | 1.18% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 0.88% | 4.20% | 3.32% |
| TMOThermo Fisherscientific Inc. | 0.41% | 4.30% | 3.89% |
| TXNTexas Instrument Inc | 0.60% | 3.80% | 3.20% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.63% | 2.50% | 0.87% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 1.53% | 2.40% | 0.87% |
| KLACKla-tencor | 0.70% | 2.70% | 2.00% |
| ABTAbbot Laboratories | 0.39% | 2.20% | 1.81% |
59.9% of QLTY is already inside ACVF.
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, ACVF or QLTY?
ACVF has an expense ratio of 0.75% while QLTY charges 0.50%. QLTY is the cheaper option, by $25 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACVF or QLTY?
Over the past year ACVF returned +12.34% vs +20.95% for QLTY, so QLTY leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ACVF or QLTY?
QLTY has been the more volatile fund at 11.9% annualized versus 11.0% for ACVF. Worst drawdown: ACVF -16.8% vs QLTY -17.0%.
Should I hold both ACVF and QLTY?
ACVF and QLTY 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 ACVF and QLTY?
59.9% of QLTY's money is in holdings ACVF also owns. 59.9% of QLTY's is in holdings ACVF also owns. They hold 28 positions in common, counted across the 387 positions we hold weights for in ACVF and 45 in QLTY.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACVF or QLTY?
ACVF yields 0.49% while QLTY yields 0.66%, so QLTY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QLTY better than ACVF?
QLTY has a lower expense ratio. QLTY led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. ACVF is less concentrated, with 28.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 45.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.