AFSM vs FLQS
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF vs Franklin US Small Cap Multifactor Index ETF
Which is better, AFSM or FLQS?
Nearly the same fund. FLQS costs less.
FLQS has a lower expense ratio. AFSM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. AFSM is less concentrated, with 8.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 9.7%.
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 | AFSM | FLQS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.35%Best |
| AUM | $130M | $50M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.52% | 1.57% |
| Holdings | 657 | 497 |
| YTD Return | +19.57%Best | +9.82% |
| 1Y Return | +23.10%Best | +9.87% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.42%Best | +12.65% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.06%Best | +5.25% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.8% | 20.4%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -43.5% | -42.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,429Best | $12,915 |
| Top 10 Weight | 8.4%Best | 9.7% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 4, 2019 | Apr 26, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 4, 2019 to Oct 14, 2026 (6.9 years).
AFSM vs FLQS 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 6.9 years both funds cover.
AFSM vs FLQS Performance
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF (AFSM) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Franklin US Small Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQS) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year AFSM returned +23.10% while FLQS returned +9.87%. Year to date, AFSM is up 19.57% versus a gain of 9.82% for FLQS.
Over three years, AFSM compounded at +19.42% per year against +12.65% for FLQS; over five years the annualized figures are +9.06% and +5.25% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, AFSM has the edge at +11.04% annualized vs +8.87%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
AFSM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 21.8% compared with 20.4% for FLQS. 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 -43.5% for AFSM and -42.0% for FLQS. 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
AFSM charges 0.75% per year while FLQS charges 0.35%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $35 annually, a gap of $40 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AFSM currently yields 0.52% against 1.57% for FLQS.
Holdings Overlap
39.0% of AFSM's money is in holdings FLQS also owns. 35.0% of FLQS's money is in holdings AFSM also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
128 positions in common, counted across the 321 positions we hold weights for in AFSM and 491 in FLQS, against full books of 657 and 497.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 347 positions for FLQS that do not appear in our book for AFSM (62.8% of the fund), and 180 for AFSM that do not appear in FLQS (55.8%).
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 AFSM | Weight in FLQS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANFAbercrombie & Fitch Co. Class A | 0.78% | 1.00% | 0.22% |
| PTGXProtagonist Therapeutics Inc | 0.71% | 0.97% | 0.26% |
| NHCNational Healthcare Corporation | 0.96% | 0.37% | 0.59% |
| ACLSAxcelis Technologies Inc | 0.62% | 0.63% | 0.01% |
| QLYSQualys Inc | 0.20% | 1.04% | 0.84% |
| CAKECheesecake Factory Inc/the | 0.32% | 0.91% | 0.59% |
| CVLTCommvault Systems Inc | 0.26% | 0.95% | 0.69% |
| ESNTEssent Group Ltd. | 0.25% | 0.93% | 0.68% |
| STNG:MHScorpio Tankers Inc. Common Stock | 0.66% | 0.50% | 0.16% |
| TNKTeekay Tankers Ltd Common Stock Temp Line | 0.84% | 0.32% | 0.52% |
39.0% of AFSM is already inside FLQS.
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, AFSM or FLQS?
AFSM has an expense ratio of 0.75% while FLQS charges 0.35%. FLQS is the cheaper option, by $40 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, AFSM or FLQS?
Over the past year AFSM returned +23.10% vs +9.87% for FLQS, so AFSM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), AFSM annualized +11.04% vs +8.87% for FLQS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, AFSM or FLQS?
AFSM has been the more volatile fund at 21.8% annualized versus 20.4% for FLQS. Worst drawdown: AFSM -43.5% vs FLQS -42.0%.
Should I hold both AFSM and FLQS?
AFSM and FLQS 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 AFSM and FLQS?
39.0% of AFSM's money is in holdings FLQS also owns. 35.0% of FLQS's is in holdings AFSM also owns. They hold 128 positions in common, counted across the 321 positions we hold weights for in AFSM and 491 in FLQS.
Which pays a higher dividend, AFSM or FLQS?
AFSM yields 0.52% while FLQS yields 1.57%, so FLQS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FLQS better than AFSM?
FLQS has a lower expense ratio. AFSM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.97. AFSM is less concentrated, with 8.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 9.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.