AVUS vs FLQL
Avantis US Equity ETF vs Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF
Which is better, AVUS or FLQL?
Each has led over a different period.
AVUS led over 1Y and the full window, FLQL over 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. AVUS is less concentrated, with 29.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.2%.
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 | AVUS | FLQL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Tie | 0.15%Tie |
| AUM | $14.9B | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.94% | 1.06% |
| Holdings | 1,917 | 219 |
| YTD Return | +15.65%Best | +12.74% |
| 1Y Return | +20.98%Best | +16.39% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.87% | +22.41%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.65% | +14.06%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.6% | 15.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -37.0% | -33.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,141 | $19,305Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 29.7%Best | 37.2% |
| Fund Family | Avantis Investors | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 24, 2019 | Apr 26, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 26, 2019 to Oct 14, 2026 (7 years).
AVUS vs FLQL 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 years both funds cover.
AVUS vs FLQL Performance
Avantis US Equity ETF (AVUS) is an ETF from Avantis Investors and Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQL) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year AVUS returned +20.98% while FLQL returned +16.39%. Year to date, AVUS is up 15.65% versus a gain of 12.74% for FLQL.
Over three years, AVUS compounded at +21.87% per year against +22.41% for FLQL; over five years the annualized figures are +12.65% and +14.06% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, AVUS has the edge at +15.59% annualized vs +14.83%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
AVUS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.6% compared with 15.9% for FLQL. 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 -37.0% for AVUS and -33.6% for FLQL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AVUS charges 0.15% per year while FLQL charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $15 annually. On income, AVUS currently yields 0.94% against 1.06% for FLQL.
Holdings Overlap
52.7% of AVUS's money is in holdings FLQL also owns. 89.9% of FLQL's money is in holdings AVUS also owns.
Most of FLQL is already inside AVUS. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
154 positions in common, counted across the 1,309 positions we hold weights for in AVUS and 217 in FLQL, against full books of 1,917 and 219.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 60 positions for FLQL that do not appear in our book for AVUS (9.5% of the fund), and 734 for AVUS that do not appear in FLQL (41.5%).
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 AVUS | Weight in FLQL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.63% | 7.72% | 2.09% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 5.54% | 7.46% | 1.92% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 4.28% | 5.26% | 0.98% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.43% | 3.23% | 0.20% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 2.00% | 3.30% | 1.30% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.24% | 2.06% | 0.18% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 1.62% | 2.65% | 1.03% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.31% | 1.44% | 0.87% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.00% | 2.14% | 1.14% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.41% | 1.11% | 0.30% |
89.9% of FLQL is already inside AVUS.
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, AVUS or FLQL?
AVUS has an expense ratio of 0.15% while FLQL charges 0.15%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, AVUS or FLQL?
Over the past year AVUS returned +20.98% vs +16.39% for FLQL, so AVUS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), AVUS annualized +15.59% vs +14.83% for FLQL. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, AVUS or FLQL?
AVUS has been the more volatile fund at 17.6% annualized versus 15.9% for FLQL. Worst drawdown: AVUS -37.0% vs FLQL -33.6%.
Should I hold both AVUS and FLQL?
AVUS and FLQL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 AVUS and FLQL?
89.9% of FLQL's money is in holdings AVUS also owns. 89.9% of FLQL's is in holdings AVUS also owns. They hold 154 positions in common, counted across the 1,309 positions we hold weights for in AVUS and 217 in FLQL.
Which pays a higher dividend, AVUS or FLQL?
AVUS yields 0.94% while FLQL yields 1.06%, so FLQL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FLQL better than AVUS?
AVUS led over 1Y and the full window, FLQL over 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. AVUS is less concentrated, with 29.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.