FLQL vs OMFL
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF vs Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF
Which is better, FLQL or OMFL?
Each has led over a different period.
FLQL has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, OMFL over 1Y. OMFL is less concentrated, with 37.0% 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 | FLQL | OMFL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Best | 0.29% |
| AUM | $2.2B | $4.8B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.84% |
| Holdings | 219 | 1,272 |
| YTD Return | +12.74% | +15.31%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.39% | +18.97%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.41%Best | +16.52% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.06%Best | +9.22% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.4%Best | 17.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.6% | -33.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,305Best | $15,542 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.2% | 37.0%Best |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 26, 2017 | Nov 8, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 10, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (8.9 years).
FLQL vs OMFL 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 8.9 years both funds cover.
FLQL vs OMFL Performance
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQL) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFL) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year FLQL returned +16.39% while OMFL returned +18.97%. Year to date, FLQL is up 12.74% versus a gain of 15.31% for OMFL.
Over three years, FLQL compounded at +22.41% per year against +16.52% for OMFL; over five years the annualized figures are +14.06% and +9.22% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, FLQL has the edge at +14.22% annualized vs +13.86%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
OMFL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 15.4% 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 -33.6% for FLQL and -33.2% for OMFL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FLQL charges 0.15% per year while OMFL charges 0.29%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $29 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLQL currently yields 1.06% against 0.84% for OMFL.
Holdings Overlap
88.8% of FLQL's money is in holdings OMFL also owns. 62.6% of OMFL's money is in holdings FLQL also owns.
Most of FLQL is already inside OMFL. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
145 positions in common, counted across the 217 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 577 in OMFL, against full books of 219 and 1,272.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 407 positions for OMFL that do not appear in our book for FLQL (36.4% of the fund), and 70 for FLQL that do not appear in OMFL (10.7%).
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 FLQL | Weight in OMFL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.72% | 9.03% | 1.31% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.46% | 5.56% | 1.90% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.26% | 6.62% | 1.36% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.30% | 2.99% | 0.31% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.23% | 1.88% | 1.35% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.65% | 2.42% | 0.23% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 1.72% | 2.86% | 1.14% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.06% | 1.40% | 0.66% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 1.21% | 2.17% | 0.96% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 1.63% | 1.57% | 0.06% |
88.8% of FLQL is already inside OMFL.
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, FLQL or OMFL?
FLQL has an expense ratio of 0.15% while OMFL charges 0.29%. FLQL is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLQL or OMFL?
Over the past year FLQL returned +16.39% vs +18.97% for OMFL, so OMFL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), FLQL annualized +14.22% vs +13.86% for OMFL. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLQL or OMFL?
OMFL has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 15.4% for FLQL. Worst drawdown: FLQL -33.6% vs OMFL -33.2%.
Should I hold both FLQL and OMFL?
FLQL and OMFL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between FLQL and OMFL?
88.8% of FLQL's money is in holdings OMFL also owns. 62.6% of OMFL's is in holdings FLQL also owns. They hold 145 positions in common, counted across the 217 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 577 in OMFL.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLQL or OMFL?
FLQL yields 1.06% while OMFL yields 0.84%, so FLQL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is OMFL better than FLQL?
FLQL has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, OMFL over 1Y. OMFL is less concentrated, with 37.0% 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.