FLQL vs TSPA
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF vs T Rowe Price US Equity Research ETF
Which is better, FLQL or TSPA?
Nearly the same fund. FLQL costs less.
FLQL has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y and 5Y, TSPA over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. FLQL is less concentrated, with 37.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.1%.
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 | TSPA |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Best | 0.34% |
| AUM | $2.2B | $4.7B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.06% | 0.55% |
| Holdings | 219 | 330 |
| YTD Return | +12.74% | +13.26%Best |
| 1Y Return | +16.39% | +17.33%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.41%Best | +22.25% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +14.06%Best | +13.59% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.0%Best | 15.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -21.4%Best | -24.7% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $19,305Best | $18,910 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.2%Best | 38.1% |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | T.Rowe Price |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 26, 2017 | Jun 8, 2021 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 9, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.3 years).
FLQL vs TSPA 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.
FLQL vs TSPA Performance
Franklin US Large Cap Multifactor Index ETF (FLQL) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and T Rowe Price US Equity Research ETF (TSPA) is an ETF from T.Rowe Price. Over the past year FLQL returned +16.39% while TSPA returned +17.33%. Year to date, FLQL is up 12.74% versus a gain of 13.26% for TSPA.
Over three years, FLQL compounded at +22.41% per year against +22.25% for TSPA; over five years the annualized figures are +14.06% and +13.59% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TSPA 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 -21.4% for FLQL and -24.7% for TSPA. 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
FLQL charges 0.15% per year while TSPA charges 0.34%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $34 annually, a gap of $19 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLQL currently yields 1.06% against 0.55% for TSPA.
Holdings Overlap
78.1% of FLQL's money is in holdings TSPA also owns. 58.9% of TSPA's money is in holdings FLQL also owns.
Most of FLQL is already inside TSPA. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
72 positions in common, counted across the 217 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 326 in TSPA, against full books of 219 and 330.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 243 positions for TSPA that do not appear in our book for FLQL (39.6% of the fund), and 141 for FLQL that do not appear in TSPA (21.2%).
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 FLQL | Weight in TSPA | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.46% | 8.18% | 0.72% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.72% | 6.74% | 0.98% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.26% | 5.76% | 0.50% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.23% | 3.93% | 0.70% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.30% | 2.50% | 0.80% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.65% | 3.15% | 0.50% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.14% | 2.64% | 0.50% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.06% | 2.08% | 0.02% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.44% | 1.68% | 0.24% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.30% | 1.43% | 0.13% |
78.1% of FLQL is already inside TSPA.
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 TSPA?
FLQL has an expense ratio of 0.15% while TSPA charges 0.34%. FLQL is the cheaper option, by $19 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLQL or TSPA?
Over the past year FLQL returned +16.39% vs +17.33% for TSPA, so TSPA leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLQL or TSPA?
TSPA has been the more volatile fund at 15.5% annualized versus 15.0% for FLQL. Worst drawdown: FLQL -21.4% vs TSPA -24.7%.
Should I hold both FLQL and TSPA?
FLQL and TSPA 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 FLQL and TSPA?
78.1% of FLQL's money is in holdings TSPA also owns. 58.9% of TSPA's is in holdings FLQL also owns. They hold 72 positions in common, counted across the 217 positions we hold weights for in FLQL and 326 in TSPA.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLQL or TSPA?
FLQL yields 1.06% while TSPA yields 0.55%, so FLQL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TSPA better than FLQL?
FLQL has a lower expense ratio. FLQL led over 3Y and 5Y, TSPA over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.98. FLQL is less concentrated, with 37.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.1%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.