DFUS vs FLQL
Dimensional US Equity Market ETF vs Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF
Which is better, DFUS or FLQL?
Nearly the same fund. DFUS costs less.
DFUS has a lower expense ratio. DFUS led over 1Y, FLQL over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. DFUS is less concentrated, with 35.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.6%.
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 | DFUS | FLQL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.09%Best | 0.15% |
| AUM | $21.4B | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.84% | 1.02% |
| Holdings | 2,253 | 219 |
| YTD Return | +14.65%Best | +14.13% |
| 1Y Return | +18.40%Best | +17.84% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.73% | +22.94%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +13.46% | +14.74%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.5% | 15.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -24.6% | -21.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,802 | $19,887Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.2%Best | 38.6% |
| Fund Family | Dimensional | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 25, 2001 | Apr 26, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 14, 2021 to Oct 13, 2026 (5.3 years).
DFUS 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 5.3 years both funds cover.
DFUS vs FLQL Performance
Dimensional US Equity Market ETF (DFUS) is an ETF from Dimensional and Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQL) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US). Over the past year DFUS returned +18.40% while FLQL returned +17.84%. Year to date, DFUS is up 14.65% versus a gain of 14.13% for FLQL.
Over three years, DFUS compounded at +22.73% per year against +22.94% for FLQL; over five years the annualized figures are +13.46% and +14.74% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
DFUS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.5% compared with 15.0% 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 -24.6% for DFUS and -21.4% 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 0.98. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
DFUS charges 0.09% per year while FLQL charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $9 vs $15 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, DFUS currently yields 0.84% against 1.02% for FLQL.
Holdings Overlap
56.5% of DFUS's money is in holdings FLQL also owns. 95.9% of FLQL's money is in holdings DFUS also owns.
Most of FLQL is already inside DFUS. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
186 positions in common, counted across the 2,226 positions we hold weights for in DFUS and 214 in FLQL, against full books of 2,253 and 219.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 24 positions for FLQL that do not appear in our book for DFUS (3.3% of the fund), and 803 for DFUS that do not appear in FLQL (41.3%).
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 DFUS | Weight in FLQL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.78% | 7.91% | 1.13% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.11% | 7.35% | 0.24% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.21% | 5.08% | 0.13% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.56% | 3.32% | 0.24% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc,class A | 2.78% | 3.57% | 0.79% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.28% | 2.87% | 0.59% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.38% | 2.37% | 0.01% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.04% | 2.09% | 0.05% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 0.98% | 2.09% | 1.11% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.91% | 1.95% | 1.04% |
95.9% of FLQL is already inside DFUS.
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, DFUS or FLQL?
DFUS has an expense ratio of 0.09% while FLQL charges 0.15%. DFUS is the cheaper option, by $6 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, DFUS or FLQL?
Over the past year DFUS returned +18.40% vs +17.84% for FLQL, so DFUS leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, DFUS or FLQL?
DFUS has been the more volatile fund at 15.5% annualized versus 15.0% for FLQL. Worst drawdown: DFUS -24.6% vs FLQL -21.4%.
Should I hold both DFUS and FLQL?
DFUS and FLQL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.98, 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 DFUS and FLQL?
95.9% of FLQL's money is in holdings DFUS also owns. 95.9% of FLQL's is in holdings DFUS also owns. They hold 186 positions in common, counted across the 2,226 positions we hold weights for in DFUS and 214 in FLQL.
Which pays a higher dividend, DFUS or FLQL?
DFUS yields 0.84% while FLQL yields 1.02%, so FLQL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is FLQL better than DFUS?
DFUS has a lower expense ratio. DFUS led over 1Y, FLQL over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. DFUS is less concentrated, with 35.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.6%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.